Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]

To be considered on Tuesday 25 March.

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Primary Care Provision

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the use of the private sector in primary care provision in the NHS. [19161]

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): None.

Mr. Rooney: Were not the Government's true intentions on primary care, as with so much of the national health service, shown in the original drafting of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill—that is, the wholesale privatisation of the service and the extensive involvement of the private sector, to the detriment of patients?

Mr. Malone: No. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I thought that he might have been rising to record the 6.9 per cent. increase in the number of general practitioners since 1978–79 in his local health authority, or perhaps to congratulate it on 60 per cent., of the local population being covered by fundholding, but no, he raises yet again another argument that we killed off both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the coming general election campaign, three points will be made: first, the precise amount of savings made in the NHS by the use of the private sector; secondly, that every penny of those savings went towards patient care; thirdly, that there would be no chance of such money coming if ever the Labour party was to have a chance to govern?

Mr. Malone: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's points. Of course it is true that the Labour party still has

an ideological point of view about any private sector involvement, no matter how new it may try to appear to the public. That would mean fewer services for patients.

Ms Jowell: Is the Minister aware that, in the past four years, the amount spent by fundholding doctors on getting patients treated in private hospitals has increased from £4 million to £66 million and that, at the same time, 144 trusts have gone into debt? Is that not further evidence of the Government's undermining of the NHS in favour of private health care, and that the Government's failure to safeguard the NHS shows why the people of Britain deserve better?

Mr. Malone: Perhaps it is about time the hon. Lady started to think about patients when she talks about health care and the quality of services that are being provided. Put into context, the figure she mentions is about 1.9 per cent. of fundholding budgets. It provides better care for patients and services that patients want. The whole nation will know that the Labour party would deny them those services if it were ever to be returned to office.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend know that Staffordshire social services department is deliberately preventing people from going into residential and nursing care in the private sector, contrary to the principles enunciated in my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Health's excellent White Paper, and that the High Court has recently issued an injunction against that department because of the disgraceful way in which it is handling that function and responsibility?

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He gets to the heart of who—Conservatives or Labour— will provide better services for patients. I have no doubt that he will be campaigning vigorously on that point and on the White Paper that my right hon. Friend has recently published on the matter, so that the electorate will have a clear choice. That choice will be in favour of this Government's policies.

Dental Charges

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of NHS dental charges. [19162]

Mr. Malone: All Governments since 1951 have accepted that patients who can afford to should make some contribution towards the cost of their dental care. National health service dental treatment is free to those aged under 18 and extensive exemption and remission arrangements protect vulnerable groups.

Mr. Banks: Why does not the Minister tell us that real dental charges have gone up by 245 per cent. since 1979? Those are not just arid statistics, but are based on my experience. I have just paid £350 for a crown. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That may be funny for Conservative Members. If any of them want some free dental service outside the Chamber afterwards I should be more than happy to give it to them. I am now facing £600 of periodontal work that has to be done privately because it cannot be provided on the national health service. I can afford it because I have a job and I shall have a job after


1 May, which is more than can be said for some Conservative Members, but what about people on low earnings who cannot afford that? We have a toothless Government who are obviously determined to render the nation toothless as well.

Mr. Malone: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in his constituency between 1991–92 and 1995–96. Perhaps he is not interested in that, but is interested only in what is happening to him. The proportion of adult courses of treatment provided free in his health authority has risen from 48.5 per cent. in 1991–92 to 59.5 per cent. We shall take no lessons from Labour on charging until the shadow Chancellor releases the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) from the shackles that have bound him on health service expenditure, meaning that Labour cannot match the Prime Minister's pledge for real increases in funding year on year on year on year on year during the next Parliament.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind the House and the former guardian of the Greater London council silver who introduced dental charges, and how many general hospitals would have to be closed if dental charges were abolished?

Mr. Malone: Dental charges have been supported by Governments since the early 1950s. I cannot tell my hon. Friend how many hospitals would have to be closed, but £381 million would have to be recovered. Labour has recently reneged on what it had said about free eyesight tests. The public know what Labour would do about dental charges if it were ever elected to office.

Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister be straight with the House and accept that not just in Wales, but throughout the country, there are constituencies with hardly any NHS dental service? The issue has been raised for the past four years. Is it not about time that he came forward with a plan to ensure that British people, on benefit or not, have access to an NHS dentist?

Mr. Malone: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been living. He has certainly not been following the affairs of this House recently. In the context of a growing dental service with more dentists and more treatments than ever, we have just given a Third Reading to a primary health care Bill that will address the problems of locating treatment in certain parts of the country. Access schemes have also been set in place, for which I hope health authorities in his constituency have been bidding. We have taken initiatives that have been endorsed by the House. I am glad to be able to point them out to the hon. Gentleman at this late stage.

Chief Nursing Officers

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals' chief nursing officers currently bear the title matron; and if he will make a statement. [19163]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): The information requested

is not available centrally. Job titles may have changed, but the principles of professional leadership remain and trusts can use the title matron if they wish.

Mr. Greenway: I invite my hon. Friend to consult those who have matrons in their hospitals and others who have known hospitals with matrons. Is he aware that they are very glamorous people? Matron is a better and more meaningful title than any other for a chief nursing officer. Will he bring back the glamorous matron? We want her.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The first glamorous matron who comes to mind is Hattie Jacques; glamour comes in all shapes and forms. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is crucial that we have a management system which provides the most effective health care for patients being treated under the national health service.

General Practitioners

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require all general practitioners to become fundholders. [19164]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The general practitioner fundholding scheme is, and will remain, voluntary. With effect from 1 April this year, 58 per cent. of patients will be registered with a fundholding GP.

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend says that the scheme will remain voluntary. Does he agree, however, that fundholders are able to offer increased opportunities for treatment at their surgeries rather than at a hospital? I have visited the Barton-Upon-Humber surgery, which is a fundholding practice in my constituency. It is able to deliver patient care, ensuring that patients do not have to go 20 miles down the road to a hospital at Grimsby or Scunthorpe. The practice is able to offer what used to be regarded as cottage hospital treatment. Many treatments are now available from fundholders. Will my right hon. Friend think again about making the scheme available to all patients?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the benefits for patients of the fundholding scheme. He quoted a typical example; there are many others throughout the health service. Over the next few weeks, the question for the Labour party is why it supports the abolition of a scheme that has brought about the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is quite specific. A Labour Government would abolish fundholding. That would neuter Britain's GPs and be a major step backwards in the provision of health care. The burden is on the hon. Gentleman to explain why he wants the health service to take that gigantic step backwards.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the Government's version of fundholding introduce elements of competition which undermine the principle of universality? Is not that principle founded on an injunction of 2,000 years ago, to bear each other's burdens? When will the Government put that into practice in the health service in the next millennium?

Mr. Dorrell: It is extraordinary that, when we introduce a scheme that improves care for the patients of


fundholding doctors and which the majority of Britain's GPs adopt because they believe that it is in the interests of their patients, Labour's reaction is to want to abolish the scheme that has made those improvements possible. I simply fail to understand how the Labour party can say that the right way forward for the health service is to abolish a scheme that has brought about the improvements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred.

Mr. Mans: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in Lancaster, all doctors have fundholding practices. Does he agree that, if the system were abolished, patient care in north-west Lancashire would be severely affected—and would be a lot worse?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In his constituency, in Lancashire, and around the country, fundholding is delivering improved patient care not only to the patients of fundholding GPs, but to every patient of the health service, because it has changed the relationship between primary and secondary care, to the advantage of primary care.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seems to disagree. He should look at a press release from the British Medical Association published this morning in which the BMA and the representatives of general practice in Britain came together and made it crystal clear that they support the continued existence of a range of options for Britain's GPs. That is the position of the BMA and of the representatives of Britain's GPs. The Labour party must explain why it believes it knows better than the majority of Britain's GPs what is in the interests of their patients.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the system created as a result of the Government's reforms unfairly allocates money to GPs depending on whether they are fundholders and has produced a two-tier service for patients depending on whether their doctors are fundholders, will the Government modify it, which fundholders would willingly accept, so that, no matter which GP people go to, they have equal access to the health service, or will the Secretary of State go into the election defending a two-tier health service which is a national health lottery for Britain's patients?

Mr. Dorrell: I am going into the general election campaign defending a system of totally fair funding across all parts of the NHS—whether GP fundholders or not. I take it as significant that, on this question about fundholding, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and all his hon. Friends have remained firmly seated. They are not prepared to engage in the argument about fundholding in Britain, because they know that they are on a loser.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is tremendous public support for GP fundholding in my constituency? Will he confirm that the Labour party's policies are contrary to the health needs of my constituents, and will work against them in the long term?

Mr. Dorrell: Once again, my hon. Friend is right. He highlights the fact that the Labour party adopts only policies that would impose a single bureaucracy across

the entire country. The idea that there may be advantage in different approaches in different localities, reflecting the different choices of GPs and their patients, is utterly foreign to the Labour party. It will never win the argument, and is no longer even prepared to engage in it.

Clinical Services

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for use of the private sector in clinical services in the NHS. [19165]

Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of the private finance initiative in respect of clinical services in the NHS. [19173]

Mr. Dorrell: The private finance initiative in the national health service is concerned with the provision of modern and efficient facilities for the delivery of NHS health care. It is not concerned with the transfer of NHS clinical services to the private sector.

Ms Eagle: How can the people of Britain believe the Secretary of State when they look at the PFI contract for the Royal Hallamshire extension in Sheffield, which includes the privatisation of radiology and pathology services? Do not they, like Opposition Members, know that the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS? All Tories want is to get as much of it into the private sector as possible.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady will no doubt keep repeating the mantra, but she will cut no ice. People know that, over the past 18 years, we have delivered a broader range of high-quality care to all patients who need it. That is the commitment that the Conservative party has delivered, about which the Labour party is content only to talk.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does not the Minister understand that, despite the secrecy about clinical services, the creeping privatisation is well known to people in the country? Once again, no reassurance has been given today that a future Conservative Government—heaven forbid—would not take the opportunity to privatise. Does he not understand that people know that, over the past 18 years, the Government have looted the wealth of those who created it and intend, through the internal market, to loot the health of public services by introducing private services? Will he try at least to give a positive answer instead of the same old corny comments on clinical services that he has given up to now?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's slightly convoluted question might be clearer if he sought to explain the Labour party's policy on the hospital building programme to his constituents and people throughout the country. What the Government have set out is crystal clear. We have launched the PFI, which holds the prospect of long-needed hospital building programmes in Norwich, Dartford, Bishop Auckland, north Durham, Worcester, Calderdale, Bromley, Hereford and Carlisle. Labour's Front Benchers must explain to the people why they would put all those projects on hold.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the more socialist countries in the


European Union allow and encourage independent health care organisations to supplement the statutory authorities' expenditure on health? Statistics on the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health show that we spend the same as other countries in the public sector; the extra that enables them to boast that they spend more than us is made up by independent care organisations, which are rejected by the Opposition.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right about the arithmetic. It is also worth reflecting on the point that British citizens have exactly the same opportunity to obtain private health care insurance as citizens of other countries, but a smaller proportion of the British find it necessary to do so because the national health service commands a confidence that comparable organisations elsewhere do not. The reality is that the British national health service is the world's most efficient health care system. An endorsement of that principle from the Opposition occasionally would make a welcome change.

Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade union Unison is wholly opposed to the private finance initiative in the NHS? Given the pecuniary relationship between that union and the offices of Labour Front Benchers, what credence does he give to the claim by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that he wants to speed up the PFI in health care?

Mr. Dorrell: The Opposition cannot work out their attitude to the PFI in health care. They say they want to speed it up; they also describe it as the privatisation initiative. We have heard this afternoon the Opposition's visceral suspicion of any suggestion that private capital and management can reinforce the delivery of NHS objectives. They oppose it before they hear the arguments. That is why the Government and the Conservative party, re-elected in the next Parliament, will deliver improvements in the national health service that the Labour party could never dream of.

Mr. Chris Smith: Why does the Secretary of State not have the honesty to admit that the Tory agenda is a piece-by-piece privatisation of the national health service? Will he now confirm what he failed to say a few minutes ago—that, at the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield, radiology and pathology will be put out to the private sector? He and his colleagues have consistently refused to give a guarantee that they will not privatise clinical services. Will he give such a guarantee now? If he will not, and if the Tories are elected again, we will not have a national health service in five years' time.

Mr. Dorrell: That beggars belief. I gave the hon. Gentleman due warning, and he still comes to the Dispatch Box and calls the PFI privatisation. The last time he mentioned the subject, he said that Labour promised to speed up PFI deals. Now he calls it privatisation. The hon. Gentleman must sort out his ideas—and he does not have long in which to do so.

Mr. Booth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is staggering that two of the first three questions tabled by Opposition Members relate to complaints about the private sector? Does he agree that that says something

about their priorities? The right priorities for the national health service are patient care, standards, and more money, which we will deliver.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right on every count. We have the commitment to deliver a growing health service, which the Labour party will not match. We have the commitment to deliver a properly managed health service, which the Labour party will not match. We also have the commitment to deliver quality of care to patients, which the Labour party regards as a boring detail.

Mental Health Patients

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on provision for mental health patients. [19166]

Mr. Burns: A range of policy initiatives have been taken that should enable health authorities, in conjunction with other agencies, to provide a comprehensive service for patients with mental health problems.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that response, but does he not accept that there is still work to be done centrally, to gain a better understanding of the needs of the nation and to plan strategy accordingly, and that part of that strategy must include a recognition of the need for more improvement in mental health care for children and adolescents?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. Yes, of course the Government and all in the national health service are determined to enhance and further to improve mental health provision for adults and children. As he will be aware, several initiatives designed further to enhance that care have been taken over the past few years. We are not complacent; we shall continue with that work. As for the treatment of adults with severe mental health problems, last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published a Green Paper, to explore the options for moving forward to further improvement in the service.

Mr. Nigel Evans: About a month ago I went to a mental health seminar in Preston, where I was impressed by an initiative that has been taken up by one of the trusts to the west of my constituency, which I hope will be taken up in my constituency, too—a mental health helpline. As my hon. Friend will know, people who need help with mental health problems often need it at unsocial hours, not just between nine and five. Will he congratulate the people who volunteer to give guidance via the helpline, and encourage other trusts to take up such initiatives?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House what sounds like an excellent idea—providing support and making available through the helpline counselling, advice and help for those in crisis and their families. I strongly recommend other health authorities and trusts to consider that example, and to see what lessons can be learned so as further to enhance support for the families of those suffering from mental illness.

Hospital Waiting Lists (Manchester)

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Manchester area have been waiting longer than 12 months for hospital admission. [19167]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): Provisional figures show that, on 31 December 1996, 384 people resident in the Manchester health authority area had been waiting more than 12 months for admission to hospital.

Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I was asking about current figures rather than those for last December. May I tell him that, for the North Manchester hospital alone, 180 people have been waiting longer than 12 months for admission? Further compounding the problem, the equivalent of almost two wards in that hospital are bed-blocked because social services cannot accommodate the patients outside the hospital. As a result, 913 consultant episodes concerning patients who need attention have not taken place.

Mr. Horam: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about bed-blocking, he should take his complaint to the Manchester local authority, which is in the firing line when it comes to doing something effective about it. Over the past few months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has helped with measures specifically designed to reduce bed blocking, so I am surprised that Manchester has not done a better job.
Equally, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not singing the praises of his native Manchester, which has a good record on waiting times. Over the past few years, there have been periods in which, in Manchester as a whole, nobody waited more than 12 months. As the House should be aware, the national picture shows that we have maintained the progress with waiting times, despite the attention now being turned to emergency care and mental illness. The hon. Gentleman really has nothing to complain about.

Mr. Atkins: Will not waiting lists in Manchester, at hospitals such as the Christie, be considerably helped by the building of the £5.8 million cancer unit at the Royal Preston, which will do a great deal to provide facilities for people in Preston? That will avoid their having to go to the Christie in Manchester, thereby improving the situation of patients both in Manchester and in Preston.

Mr. Horam: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend made that point. We are hearing a great deal about Lancashire today, and with good reason. Not only is a Caiman cancer unit being developed at Preston and Chorley; there are others at Blackburn and Burnley, Blackpool, Lancaster, and Kendal and Barrow. All represent new initiatives and are part of a clear programme to deal with cancer problems. I am delighted that Lancashire is taking the lead.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister confirm that the Manchester figures are not unique, and that more than 1 million people are on hospital waiting lists nationally? That figure is increasing and it is the highest we have ever had. The health authority in Manchester has a current

deficit of £1.2 million. We assume that that has be found from next year's budget, which will mean even longer waiting lists in Manchester. Is that not further evidence of the mess and turmoil that the Government have created in the national health service, and one of the many reasons why they should not be elected for a fifth term?

Mr. Horam: On the contrary, it is an extremely good reason why we should remain in power. Waiting times have improved: the average wait is down from nine months to four months. When Labour was last in power in 1979, one in four people had to wait more than 12 months. That figure is now down to one in 50 people. In 1979, 25 per cent. waited for more than 12 months, whereas, under the Government, the figure is now only 2 per cent.

Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, Stanmore, to discuss the future major development plans. [19168]

Mr. Horam: I shall be having a meeting shortly with the chairman and chief executive of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital trust, which is working up a business case for the redevelopment of the hospital.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for the thoughtful way in which he has responded to the many submissions on the hospital's future that have been made in recent months and, indeed, years. I shall also be present at that meeting on Tuesday at 4 o'clock. The overwhelming opinion—local and wider opinion—is in favour of the hospital remaining on the same site. To allow the necessary funding to be made available in the future and to ensure that the excess of old buildings is reduced and that the modern footprint and curtilage is properly paid for, will he ensure that the regional health authority speeds up its authorisation decisions to get that money under way?

Mr. Horam: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, and I look forward to that meeting. The business case is at a fairly early stage. I am conscious of the orthopaedic hospital's extraordinary record over many years. About 30 or 40 per cent. of all the orthopaedic surgeons in the country have been trained at the Stanmore hospital at one time or another. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who strongly supports the hospital, is very proud of that record.

Rehabilitation Services (Elderly People)

Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rehabilitation services provided for the elderly. [19169]

Mr. Burns: New arrangements for national health service responsibilities for continuing health care, which includes rehabilitation and recovery services, were introduced in April 1996. Since that date, all health authorities have been required to have in place local policies and eligibility criteria for continuing health care.

Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that the Government have failed elderly patients by closing


thousands of NHS beds for the elderly and by not, in spite of what he says, providing the convalescent and recuperative care beds required to allow people to stay in hospital until they are strong enough to return to their own homes? Does he also agree that the Government have turned the care of the elderly into a competitive marketplace, and have put price and profit before decency and dignity in old age?

Mr. Burns: No, I do not agree with a word of what the hon. Lady has said, because it is totally divorced from the truth. She seems to forget that the continuing care challenge fund has provided £16 million in the current year, and will next year provide £20 million, plus £40 million of matching funds from local and health authorities, including £11 million for rehabilitation and recovery services. The gimmick that the Labour party has announced in the past month on recuperation is ridiculous. It proposes a pilot scheme costing £500,000, which is the amount that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving, through the continuing care fund, to the constituency and health authority area of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). That excludes the rest of the country, which will receive the other money.

Mr. Congdon: Would not more resources be available for rehabilitation services and care in the community if local councils, especially those controlled by the Labour party, were prepared to make more use of private residential homes, rather than boost bed usage in their own homes? That costs the taxpayer a lot of money, which could be better used to provide care for more elderly people in the community.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right. It has been shown that, on average, a place per person per week in a local authority-owned home in England costs £40 more than a place in the private sector. It seems odd that the Labour party is so antagonistic towards getting better value for money while providing the highest quality of care for the elderly, so that more money can be saved and ploughed back into care for the elderly.

Ms Coffey: Does the Minister accept that 9,000 NHS beds for elderly people have been lost since 1990—beds for nursing care, rehabilitation and convalescence? Are not old people in need of care simply seen as bed blockers by hospitals driven to maximise their business income? How can this Government, who have abandoned health care for old people to the market, be trusted with the NHS for a fifth term of office?

Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady seems to be divorced from reality. The Government's policy is being implemented day in, day out—despite the smiles of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who should realise that this is not a funny subject. Care for the elderly is at the highest level possible and record amounts of money are being spent. It is time local authorities—which are mostly Labour-controlled—started to work with health authorities in using the continuity care challenge fund money to undo the problems of bed blocking and finding proper care for the elderly, who deserve it.

Patient Care

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to improve patient care in the NHS. [19171]

Mr. Dorrell: Over the next five years, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pledged that we shall increase the real resources available to the national health service year on year on year on year on year. We challenge Labour to match that pledge.

Mr. Winterton: The House must warmly welcome the commitment given by the present Conservative Government to increase spending for every year of the next Parliament if they are re-elected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the amount of money spent on health care that is important—we spend a great deal— but the level of service provided? That service has made the United Kingdom national health service the very best in the world. The Opposition have failed to match our pledge on resources, and they would fail to deliver the best service in the world as well.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. It is not simply a pledge year on year on year on year on year through the next Parliament. It is the 18 years since 1979—I will not say it 18 times—in which the Government have increased the resources available to the NHS year on year. We have delivered a growing NHS, and a wider range of care is available to patients. More patients are being treated and better-quality care is being provided. That is the Government's record on the NHS and we are pledged to project it through the five years of the next Parliament. The problem that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has with Mr. Charlie Whelan is that the hon. Gentleman is unable to match the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given for the next five years.

Mr. Stevenson: Is the Secretary of State aware that plans for patient care at the North Staffordshire hospital trust have been brought into question by the resignation of the chief executive, Mr. Stuart Gray? The reasons for that resignation are clouded in secrecy. Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an urgent investigation into that departure in the public interest, so that the real reasons can be established?

Mr. Dorrell: Changes in trust management are matters handled in the first instance by the trust's board. What the hon. Gentleman has to explain to the citizens of north Staffordshire—as all Labour Members must explain to their constituents—is how Labour can even begin to talk about support for the NHS when it is not prepared to match its words with real commitments. The Conservative party has shown real commitment in action. The last Government to cut the resources available to the national health service was the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. Health resources in 1979 were lower than in 1976. The Labour party must explain its record and explain how it turns its words into action.

Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways of improving patient care is by increasing the number of general practices that are


fundholding? What does he make of the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on one day that he would abolish fundholders and on the next, to a different newspaper, that he would not? Which Mr. Smith should we believe—or do they both have Sun-stroke?

Mr. Dorrell: Unfortunately for Britain's patients, but fortunately for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has since made it clear which of those policies he supports: a Labour Government would abolish fundholding. Because Labour is committed to the abolition of a scheme that has delivered real improvements to patients, the question about how to deliver real improvements to the patients of the national health service can have only one answer: re-elect a Conservative Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19191]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hughes: The Prime Minister yesterday made the uniquely personal decision not only to have a general election on 1 May and to dissolve Parliament on 8 April but that Parliament should be prorogued and sent away this Friday. [Interruption.] Is it not obvious that one of the reasons for that decision and for the unprecedented gap between prorogation and dissolution is that— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is so time-consuming. Come on, Mr. Hughes: spit it out.

Mr. Hughes: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no point in waiting for silence: the hon. Gentleman will not get silence. Produce your voice, Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Hughes: One of the reasons for that decision is that the Prime Minister knows that the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on cash for questions will be ready on Monday or Tuesday. That report will therefore not be seen by hon. Members in this Parliament and will be hidden until after the general election.

The Prime Minister: One of the reasons for making the announcement on Monday and arranging for Parliament to be prorogued on Friday was to give the hon. Gentleman time to finish his question. As for Sir Gordon's report, I have no knowledge when it will be presented.

Sir Cranley Onslow: Following his successful visit this morning to the headquarters of the McLaren formula

1 team in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that what counts is not who is ahead at the first corner, but who has the skill, expertise, stamina and nerve to see the race right through to the winning post?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The purpose of going to see the McLaren team was rather wider than that. I wanted to draw attention to a tremendous British success story, of which there are many. McLaren and the British motor industry have been a huge success. Of the 20-odd cars that lined up at Melbourne for the grand prix won by David Coulthard, 20 would have been built in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that a situation where two thirds of health authorities and one third of hospital trusts are in deficit to the tune of £300 million is grave, and potentially disastrous for many parts of the national health service?

The Prime Minister: I find it odd for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about funding in the health service, since he has declined to increase funding, whereas we have given a commitment to do so. In any event, the figures that he uses are blown out of all proportion. The forecast deficit is a relatively small fraction of the national health service budget and, of course, in less than two weeks' time, funding for the national health service will rise by £1.6 billion, a multiple of the deficit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities have deficits this year that will not be met by real-terms growth next year? To give one example, in north Essex, the deficit is £10 million and the real-terms growth that he is promising is only £9 million. He is not keeping the promise that he says he is making. He may believe that this is a matter of no account whatever, but is he aware that non-emergency surgery is being cancelled up and down the country, that accident and emergency departments are closing, that waiting lists are up and that there are bed and staff shortages in many parts of the national health service? Is that not a real tragedy, and disgraceful handling of the NHS?

The Prime Minister: Some time ago, the answer to the question whether the NHS was working was set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary as whether more people were treated, and treated well. Since then, an extra 1 million people are being treated, and treated well, in the NHS. The number of consultants in accident and emergency departments has risen by 40 per cent. over the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman does not mention that. He does not mention the fact that we have committed increased resources over and above inflation to the national health service every year since 1979, and will do so throughout the period of the next Parliament. That is a record that would not have been met by any previous Government, and cannot be met by any other Government, because they would not have delivered the growth in the economy that we have achieved.

Mr. Blair: The contrast is between the Prime Minister's complacency and what people know is happening in the national health service the length and


breadth of this country. Is it not the case that in, the past six years, there has been an increase in administration costs of more than £1.5 billion a year, with 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses? Is not the truth that the real challenge of the national health service is how to get money out of invoices, contractors, managers, company cars and pen-pushers and into front-line patient care so that we can rebuild the national health service that the Labour party created?

The Prime Minister: There are elements of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with which I would agree. That is why we support compulsory competitive tendering, which he does not support; that is why we cut a whole tier of management that he voted to keep; that is why we have cut management costs by 10 per cent., £340 million, in the past two years. He cannot do that.
No one is being complacent about the need to improve the health service: that is why we are providing more resources; that is why I mentioned the extra doctors in accident and emergency; that is why 1.5 million more patients are being treated, with more than 10 million more in-patients every year, 3.5 million day cases a year and 14 million out-patients a year. Health service hospitals are now dealing with 75,000 patients every day of the year—£730 for every man, woman and child in the country, very nearly double the amount when his party left office. The Labour party may have set up the health service, but we have built it up.

Mr. Sykes: When my right hon. Friend comes to choose his new Cabinet on 2 May—[Interruption.] Listen to the page three boys shriek, Madam Speaker. I remember when they were shrieking in Sheffield the week before the last general election. I should like to hear them shriek after this election, every single one of them. What would my right hon. Friend say if all that he had to choose from after the election was a group of failed teachers, a bunch of ex-trade union officials, one television director and a bar steward? That is all that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has to choose from.

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be a kindness to protect the right hon. Gentleman from ever having to make such a choice. Who is meant by the bar steward, I cannot imagine.

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March. [19192]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: How did the Prime Minister have the audacity at the weekend to tell Tory central council that his type of Conservatism aimed to help the struggling classes—the have-nots? In 18 years of Tory rule, what did his Tory party ever do for the homeless, the sick and the disabled? The Prime Minister is not only past his sell-by date, he is well beyond his use-by date. It is time he went.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is unusually animated on this occasion, for reasons that I do not understand. I suggest that he asks the millions of council tenants who would never have become home owners but for

the activities of the Conservative Government or the millions of people who now have savings, shares and pensions that are owned by them rather than held by a Labour Government, as they were in the past, on their behalf. We believe that, in the late 1990s, people should have the right to personal ownership for themselves and their families, and that is what we are building. We apply that to everyone, not just middle-income earners such as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. French: Did my right hon. Friend see the reports at the weekend that 40,000 people took to the streets of Paris to protest against the rising tide of European unemployment? Can he explain to the House why the same thing has not happened here and what will be the quickest way of making it happen here?

The Prime Minister: I saw that, and I have also seen the trend in unemployment in many countries across Europe. The Labour party is keen that we should sign up to a 48-hour week, the minimum wage and the social chapter. Perhaps Labour Members should hear what the United States Chamber of Commerce had to say about the 48-hour week. It has just told the Irish Government:
It is no exaggeration to say
that it would be
the single most negative change in the last 20 years.
We intend to continue to put people back to work, as we have done in spectacular fashion in the past 18 months. Policies such as the social chapter, the minimum wage and the 48-hour week—however glib they may sound—are a recipe for putting people out of work if they are in work and, if they are out of work, making sure that they stay out of work for a long time ahead. That is the poison pill of the Opposition's policy.

Casualty Units (London)

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to a London NHS hospital to discuss the operation of casualty units. [19193]

The Prime Minister: We have made an extensive investment in recent years in London's accident and emergency services as part of a £400 million capital investment to provide the highest-quality and up-to-date facilities. I hope to have the opportunity to see some of them before too long.

Mr. Corbyn: When the Prime Minister finally gets around to visiting a casualty unit in a London hospital, what answer will he give to staff who have seen one in seven of all the acute beds in London lost, 12 of the 46 casualty units closed, huge waiting lists, people waiting on trolleys, loss of morale among staff and the recent resignation of the consultant in charge of the casualty unit at Queen Mary's University hospital, Roehampton, who left because he could no longer run it within the budget provided and did not feel that he was giving people a decent service? Is that not the reason why nobody trusts him and his Government on the future of the national health service and will accordingly vote him out?

The Prime Minister: I think that the first advice that I would give them is not to vote Labour, because they are getting more money from this Government than they would from any putative Labour Government. I would tell them that the number of consultants in A and E departments has risen dramatically by 40 per cent. I would tell them that the number of nurses appointed had risen by 21 per cent. I would tell them that more patients are being treated. I would tell them that the hon. Gentleman is living proof that old Labour lives, because, while the Labour Front Benchers are saying that they will not raise taxes, he is saying:
What … many"—
including the hon. Gentleman—

have been talking about is the need to raise taxation for the above average income people in order to pay for the rest. I see a moral justification for that and I think it is the right thing to do.
That may be what he tells the consultants, but it is not what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) tells the consultants.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

ROAD TRAFFIC SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION

Mr. Chris Davies presented a Bill to amend section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so as to impose a speed limit of 20 miles per hour in built-up areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 141].

Points of Order

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come here this afternoon to make an urgent statement about the allegation that Great Eastern Railways administration ordered 20 train drivers to drive over the body of a young woman on the railway track. I hope that the report of that barbarism is not correct, but it should be discussed by the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker: I had not heard of that incident, but I am not aware of a Minister coming to make a statement on such an issue today.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that on 27 February I requested under Standing Order No. 20 an early debate on the future of the Building Research Establishment. On 27 February, 6 March and again on 13 March—on three successive occasions at business questions—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) repeated that request. You will be aware that, despite the Leader of the House agreeing to draw the matter to the attention of relevant Ministers, no such debate has taken place and no effort has been made by Ministers to give this House the opportunity to discuss the many crucial issues that arise from the proposed privatisation.
Yesterday, the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, in answer to a written question from the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), announced that his Department had entered into a contract to sell the Building Research Establishment. Is that not a flagrant abuse of ministerial power? Does it not demonstrate a deplorable failure to allow the House a proper opportunity to consider the matter before contracts are entered into? Would it not be right to require the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy

Efficiency to come to the House, make a statement and account for his actions in a matter that the House has had no opportunity to consider and debate?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, I have no authority to require a Minister to come here to make a statement at any time. Those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the build-up to his point of order. No doubt they will take note of them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that there is a digital terrestrial broadcasting application before the Independent Television Commission. One of the applicants is Mr. Murdoch. I ask for your ruling, Madam Speaker. We know of a private fund that was used to fund the Leader of the Opposition's office, although we have yet to discover who was providing that money. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition went to Australia to see Mr. Murdoch. I wonder whether that type of thing is proper, as we now know that The Sun newspaper—which is owned by Mr. Murdoch—has for some reason best known to itself decided to back the Leader of the Opposition. Do we know whether a deal has been done?

Madam Speaker: That was rather ingenious, but it was a long way from a point of order.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Transport Select Committee was due to meet tomorrow to interrogate South West Trains—the failed southern franchise. That meeting has now been aborted, without a decision by the Committee. Although we have not had a full business statement, I think that we should be entitled to the protection of the Chair and the House in ensuring that a hearing which is very important to people in 100 southern constituencies is not aborted for political reasons—to minimise the Tory party's acute embarrassment on rail privatization.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that is not a matter for the Speaker; it is entirely at the discretion of the Chairman of the Select Committee.

House Numbering and Home Delivery

Mr. Tim Devlin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the clear marking of a number or name on every dwelling and to make provision for standard sizes for all new letter boxes.
Not so long ago, I found myself in a street in Merseyside. The road name-plate had been removed by some helpful person, and eight out of the 10 houses in that road had no number visible on any part of the property. The two numbers that were on display— numbers one and eight—were in a cul-de-sac, and the numbers could therefore have been displayed either consecutively or as odds and evens. In the coming weeks, thousands of people delivering millions of items will be able to savour the frustrations that postmen suffer daily. They will learn about the amazing ability of Englishmen in their castles, Scots in their keeps and Welshmen in their valleys to conceal from the outside world exactly where they live.
Personally, I love the individuality and eccentricity of the British character and the humour of calling the canal-side cottage "Riversley house" or the upstairs maisonette "Homlea", "Dunrovin" or even "Dun Inn". I like the ancient names of Rookery Nook, Falcons Crest, Hatters End and Mon Repos. In my constituency, there are names such as Corail de Neige, Shiehallion, Ryedale and Far End cottage. I live next to a house called Stingamires, and, in a street in Stockton-on-Tees, I have seen "Hers n Mine". However, I think that the best name is one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), in Burneston road, called "This'll Do".
Some houses have a name as well as a number, but some have only names. Most of my constituency is urban. Moreover, most of the urban growth in Stockton-on-Tees is in my constituency. In many cases, houses have names and numbers, although the name but not the number is prominently on display. Although none of us wants to be treated as a number, if the proper address is a number, it would be better for the convenience of others if it were on display. Many people go looking for individuals at their addresses to ask them questions or to see them for many good reasons, only to find that the house is unmarked. I understand that Michael Levy, who funds the Leader of the Opposition's blind trust, lives in a house that has no name and no number. I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions from that.
There is a fantastic variety of letter boxes in the United Kingdom, and—as we shall discovering in the next few weeks—they come in all shapes and sizes. There is the tiny vertical letter box, in which only very small cards will fit. There is also the famous horizontal flap, which comes in many sizes and varieties, such as the spring-loaded type. Others include those located at the door base, the rear-flap variety, the one with the front sub-flap and—perhaps the one that we all hate the most—the type with the brushes and the dog behind it, ready to take our fingers off when we try to push some mail through the brushes.
Worst of all, I suppose, are the houses with no bells, no knockers and sometimes even no doors. As we all become increasingly aware of energy efficiency, and as more people succumb to the amazing offers of double glazing

salesmen, the situation seems to go from bad to worse. Every day we find some new type of devilment apparently designed to catch fingers, crunch letters and generally offer cruel and unusual punishment to the deliverer.
Given the amount of junk mail that some people receive, I can readily understand the desire to maim or frustrate the sender, but all too often it is the messenger or postman, not the sender, who pays the price.
Let us find a practical new way of designing doors and property fronts so that deliveries can be made easily and conveniently. I notice that, in France, since the time of Napoleon every separate dwelling has had to have a number clearly on display. In the United States, every house has to have a number and a registered size of post box. Let us therefore mark each house so that not just the Member of Parliament but the emergency services, the doctor, the gas or water company and others can find it in a hurry—and so that everyone gets his own junk mail, not someone else's.
This Bill will not become law, but it will serve to highlight a problem that we vow to solve at every general election. It would provide that every separate dwelling be clearly marked with a name or number at the principal entrance, and that an adequate or separate delivery opening be provided as well. It would be phased in over five years, so that by the year 2002 the postman's lot will be a happy one.
Before long the European Union will turn its attention to this amazing diversity and, as with so many other things, it will seek to end that diversity by regulation. The time to act has therefore come. Our legislators are about to spend the next six weeks hunting for numbers and door bells—sometimes even for doors—and certainly for letter boxes. Let us all consider during this time the size and shape of the letter box to take us into the new millennium. Even though in 50 years' time all our important mail may be electronic, there will still be a market for tangible leaflets, magazines, and papers that can be picked up, pored over, carried about and shown to others. How they will be delivered to a nation in which an ever increasing number of people have double glazing I do not know.
Let us leap in before Europe does and design a great British letter box as distinct as the K3 telephone box, the Brigade of Guards and the policeman's helmet. The time to act is now, and I place this Bill before the House in a spirit of good will before the general election begins.

Question put and agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr. Devlin: I will, Madam Speaker, this not being a Bill that most Conservatives would wish to sign up to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Devlin.

HOUSE NUMBERING AND HOME DELIVER

Mr. Tim Devlin accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the clear marking of a number or name on every dwelling and to make provision for standard sizes for all new letter boxes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 142].

Orders of the Day — Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

Orders of the Day — New clause 1

BURDENS ON CROFTING PROPERTY TO BE DISPOSED OF

'.—Before any disposal under section 1(1) above, the Secretary of State shall publish in respect of each such crofting property a list of those burdens that shall remain with the Secretary of State after such disposal.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is gratifying to see that the same applies to the Government's 10-minute rule Bills as applies to their manifesto: not many Members of Parliament want to sign up to it.
The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State would publish, in respect of each crofting property to be transferred, a list of burdens that would remain with the Secretary of State after disposal.
We have had a good debate, both in Scotland and in Committee, on various issues associated with the Bill. At this stage, little differentiates us from the Government in terms of the principle of the Bill, but there remains a difference in approach, especially with regard to properties transferred to crofters. Crofters feel that they could be burdened by responsibilities that may not be evident at the time of the transfer. With that in mind, we wish to push the Minister on crofting property burdens.
We are also aware that publicly owned crofts cost the public purse some £205,000 a year to maintain. A cynical view is that the Government are disposing of those crofts to save the Treasury money, so individuals may find themselves in a vulnerable position at a later date. Personally, I do not take that view, but it is important to place such issues on the face of the Bill so that crofters feel that they can take the Government at their word and can undertake the transfer of responsibilities with a clear conscience, without feeling that they may be burdened financially.
I have mentioned to the Minister in the past the type of burdens for which crofters would feel responsible—for example, a flood or landslip. Although a crofting trust has been established in all good will on the basis of viability at that time, it could find itself faced with an intolerable burden that would drive it out of viability. No one wants that to happen. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want the crofters to take responsibility, and personal choice is extremely important in that respect.
It would be helpful if the matter could be debated a little more and if the Minister could give further reassurance about the Secretary of State's responsibility now and in the future.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I rise briefly to support the new clause. Considerable concern has been expressed, principally by the Scottish

Crofters Union, about the burdens that are currently discharged in respect of the infrastructural underpinning of crofting estates owned by the Secretary of State, which may, both inadvertently and in some cases even deliberately, adhere to the trust if it acquires the property.
Any transaction should be transparent, and the crofting community should be fully aware of it before embarking on such a development. The new clause seems to achieve that purpose admirably.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): It is a sign of the times that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) cannot even speak on a Bill that has all-party support without an hon. Member from his leader's office sitting by his side reminding him what to say.
The new clause is unnecessary. Both I and my noble Friend in another place have made it clear that the Secretary of State would transfer those maintenance and repair responsibilities that go with the normal management of a crofting property transferred to a crofting trust. As I said in Committee, there would be no question of transferring responsibility for what have been termed "community assets". We explained that the best way to identify those assets that provide a broader community benefit is in individual discussion between crofting trusts and the Secretary of State. Once agreement was reached, we would be happy to make known publicly those burdens for which responsibility would remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland. We see no benefit in publishing such a list before agreement had been reached with the crofting trust, as that might give the trust the impression that my noble Friend's Department had already made its final decision on what it would and would not transfer.
The purpose of discussions would be to ensure that both parties were content. If a trust was not content with the burdens that the Department proposed to transfer, there would be no obligation on it to agree to the transfer of property

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise to the Minister for missing his opening remarks. Will he confirm that, in the event of a trust proposal being considered, the crofting trust advisory service would call in consultants to provide an independent assessment of the pros and cons? Presumably, therefore, there could be a degree of reassurance that potential burdens would be part of the analysis that the consultants would carry out.

Mr. Robertson: That assurance was given to the Committee, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of it. I reiterate the other reassurances that the Government have given: there is no intention to transfer the responsibility for community assets to crofting trusts, nor is there any intention to burden trusts in such a way as to jeopardise their financial viability. I have made it clear that the Secretary of State would be content to publish details of the burdens that will remain the responsibility of the Scottish Office after agreement had been reached with the relevant trust.
In the light of that undertaking and the assurances that my noble Friend and I have given elsewhere, I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the motion.

Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

DISPOSAL OF CROFTING PROPERTY

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 27, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Amendment No. 1 ensures that all the mineral, sporting and other rights will be transferred with the property. As mentioned previously, the Scottish Office runs the crofts at a net annual loss of more than £200,000. It is considered that those rights offer many crofts the only potential route to profitability. Without the transfer of those rights, the transfer of many crofts would not be viable.
I am aware that the Government want flexibility in that regard, but reassurance is required by the crofters, and we want it to be given in the Bill. The amendment goes some way towards assisting that process.
The Bill is still less than clear on the approach that the Secretary of State would take on the financial basis of transfer. There still exists a lack of clarity with respect to the land itself and, more importantly, with respect to the sporting, mineral and other rights. There is an apparent lack of balance with regard to the rights that the Secretary of State may transfer, and the burdens that would automatically transfer with the land. We seek to reassure those who would take part in the scheme that their crofts and trusts will be viable.

Mr. Maclennan: One of the least satisfactory aspects of crofting tenure in the highlands is the separation of sporting rights, mineral rights and certain other normal rights of ownership from the landholding enjoyed by crofters, which for many years has deprived them of the greatest potential of the land for earning a living.
The difficulty has been compounded by the absence of an authoritative register showing where such rights lie in respect of all crofting territory. That is particularly surprising in respect of crofts owned by the Secretary of State. The position seems to vary considerably. In respect of some, there are pre-emptive rights which might re-arise in the event of the Secretary of State deciding to dispose of property.
Most crofters, I believe, would regard it as desirable for the trust to have the full rights of ownership, including those valuable rights. That was certainly the consideration in the minds of the Assynt crofters when they acquired the North Assynt estate. The sporting rights are a considerable part of that asset, offering perhaps the greatest prospect of development in that estate, which has a considerable number of trout lochs.
It is slightly odd that the Secretary of State did not make it clearer when drafting the Bill that it was his intention to dispose of those rights to such crofting trusts. If he says that he cannot give that assurance because the rights may belong elsewhere, I would have to accept that,

but, in respect of interests that the Secretary of State holds, there is no good reason why he should retain sporting, mineral or any other rights if he proposes to dispose of a crofting estate. I hope that the Secretary of State's representative in the House this afternoon may say that it is the firm intention of the present Secretary of State to dispose of mineral, sporting and other rights where they are in the Secretary of State's ownership, but it would be of interest also to know how the Secretary of State would propose to deal with those cases where such rights may be held elsewhere.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I will make a brief contribution.
This is an essential amendment in relation to the viability of crofting estates that will be transferred under the Bill. Frankly, I am much less interested in the Bill than in the precedent that it sets for future legislation, which will allow the same right of purchase on a communal basis of privately owned crofting estates. However, the whole history of crofting and estates and the weakness of crofting legislation is that it permits the divorce of crofting communities from the assets that should sustain those communities and make them viable.
In many parts of the highlands and islands of Scotland, we have an absurdity and the reinforcement of a historic wrong, where crofting communities were driven to the edges of the land, living on small areas of land, but were cut off from the vast acreages that lay behind and by that land. Although they have grazing rights on that land, they do not hold sporting or mineral rights and they do not have the ownership of the rivers that flow through that land.
That is nonsense. It has always meant that the communities, which were given security of tenure under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, were never given the potential wealth that went with that tenure, so people have been allowed to remain on the land on a marginal basis, but have never had the opportunity to develop the full economic potential of their communities.
All that will happen here is that, unless the main assets of these communities are transferred with the estates, that marginality will be perpetuated. It would be absurd and no one would take it seriously in any other context if the Government, in all their munificence, who have been trying—let us be honest about this; there is nothing generous about the Bill—to get these estates off their hands since the early 1980s, after Mr. Edward du Cann's Public Accounts Committee reported on the DAFS—Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland—estates, did not accept the amendment. Nothing would be achieved if the estates transferred without their primary assets.
Therefore, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is essential, even as a gesture of good will on the part of the Minister, but, as I have said, this is only the appetiser. It has got the subject up and running. The problem for the Secretary of State and the Minister is the assertion that communities have the right to own their own land on a communal basis if, by historical accident, the land happens to be owned by the Secretary of State. However, the equivalent community next door has no such right to own its own land and manage its own affairs if another form of historical accident has visited on it the most vicious and


rapacious landowner in the highlands and islands. That anomaly cannot and will not be sustained, but let us get the precedent right.
These are the dying days of this Parliament. I have no idea to what extent the Bill will be used. If it is used, crofting communities that buy their land must have the right to own all the assets of that land. We should end once and for all the ludicrous separation between the right of tenure and the ownership by others of all economically worthwhile aspects of the land.
4 pm
On many occasions, the Secretary of State, as crofting landlord, has been prepared to sell to the highest bidder the sporting rights on a crofting estate. That has not been a sign of good will towards crofting communities. If the Bill goes through in its present form, there will be nothing to stop the Secretary of State continuing to let off the salmon fishing and shooting rights and to sub-let the mineral rights to parties other than the communities that have nominally taken over the estates. If that anomaly is not ended by the Bill, it will be done by a future Bill covering not only publicly owned crofting estates, but privately owned ones.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, the Bill gives the Government the flexibility to address the circumstances of each proposal for a trust on a case-by-case basis. Surely that is right. Ownership of sporting rights runs with the land, although it may be let to other parties. Sporting rights will therefore be transferred automatically.
The Bill would not prevent the Secretary of State from transferring mineral rights at the outset or in future. We would welcome trusts wishing to acquire mineral rights. When a trust wished to acquire the rights, the public interest would normally require that a valuation be agreed and a charge negotiated.
The Secretary of State holds mineral rights over 27 of his 53 crofting estates. The total annual income from those rights is currently in the region of only £17,000. In many cases, therefore, the appropriate charge for the freehold transfer of mineral rights would be modest.
Our presumption is that mineral rights would, when possible, be included in a transfer of assets to a new crofting trust. If a prospective trust is not initially able or willing to assume the relevant mineral rights, we propose that it should be able to benefit from the income while the Scottish Office retains the mineral rights. Such an arrangement offers flexibility to address each case and the aspirations of each crofting trust. Whatever arrangements are agreed must be fair to the trust and the public purse, from where the money to acquire the estates and support them over the past decades came.
With that assurance, I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'persons' and insert 'the community'.
The Minister is aware of the debate that we had on this is Committee, when the terms "persons" and "community" featured heavily. He said in Committee that the Crofters Commission would take account of local community development when preparing advice to the Secretary of State on the general interests of the crofting community, which it is required to consider, or any other matter that it thinks relevant. On that basis, he suggested that the amendment tabled in Committee was unnecessary.
In addition, the Minister suggested that the term "local community" was uncertain, and could include more than just the residents and the property to be disposed of. That is the point of the amendment.
The wider community interests require to be recognised for simple reasons. As others have stated, those concerned with policy innovation in the highlands and islands know that support, confidence and agreement do not come easily. It is therefore important that the Bill contains a trigger mechanism which will ensure that a transfer takes place only where there is demonstrable local support for it.
Our view is that the Bill is too narrowly drawn and that the interests of the wider community are not taken into sufficient consideration. Indeed, the Scottish Crofters Union expressed its concern to me yesterday and this morning. It points to the fact that a strict legal interpretation suggests that people living on certain areas of land may not reside on original crofting property. In legal terms, a body will acquire the land-owning interest over a piece of property. That interest carries with it certain burdens, such as march fencing, as well as certain rights to sanction development of a non-agricultural nature or forestry, and the right to resume land for a reasonable purpose such as development. Other rights, such as sporting and mineral rights over the property, may also be transferred.
The wider community interest needs to be taken into consideration. If, for example, development takes place, the environmental interests and local economic interests should be high up the agenda. Those interests are protected by local planning authorities and statutory bodies, and those bodies have a set of procedures that aim to gather the views of parties affected by possible decisions. Any individual or township can have an input in the consultative process.
The Scottish Crofters Union recognises that the danger is that rights in land for people who are not resident in the property could undermine crofting development yet, by the same token, it considers it perfectly reasonable that the wider community should be considered when non-crofting developments are being contemplated. At present, it is more common for the wider community interest to be dealt with through wider legislative mechanisms. If, for example, development takes place, planning legislation provides for the wider community's input, as do elements of the criminal law, such as laws dealing with nuisance.
The principle, with which the Scottish Crofters Union agrees, is that the wider community should have greater involvement in any wider development initiatives. It believes that that can best be dealt with through the articles and memoranda of association of any body acquiring property. It is in the interests of that wider involvement that we ask the Minister to focus his attention on the point. Support from communities is essential if the Bill is to achieve its worthy aims.

Mr. Maclennan: I too have heard from Dr. Fraser Macleod, the director of the Scottish Crofters Union, in terms similar to those described by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). In our discussion in Committee about the appropriateness or otherwise of the words
the interests of persons residing on such property
I was anxious to focus on the apparent restrictions of the use of the word "persons". I preferred the use of the words "the people". It seemed possible that "persons" could be a small number, not necessarily the majority of those who constituted the crofting community. Although I had no doubt that that was not the intention of the legislation, I had and still have concerns that the use of the word "persons" does not sufficiently embrace the interests of all those residing on the crofting estate.
I believe that the words "the community" suggested by the hon. Member for Dumbarton in place of the word "persons" attempts to meet my point and another point, which is the one on which the Scottish Crofters Union has focused—the desirability of the crofting trust having in mind in its establishment the promotion of the interests not just of crofters resident on the land being transferred but of their neighbours in the development of the crofting land.
I take the point made by the Scottish Crofters Union that, strictly legally defined, crofting communities are those associated with crofting land. I remain concerned about the use of the word "persons" for the reasons that I have given, but understand why the Scottish Crofters Union takes the view that to speak of wider community interests would potentially impose on crofters a duty to take into account considerations of those who are not, stricto senso, of that crofting community, and might impose on them burdens such as the construction of fences or other burdens that should not adhere to them as a result of acquiring the land.
The underlying purpose of clause 2 to ensure that the transfer of land from the Secretary of State to the trust considers the wider interests of all those living in the area remains unsatisfactorily spelled out. The Scottish Crofters Union is clear that that is a purpose of the clause, and I am clear that it ought to be a purpose, but it is not spelled out, and I regret that.
Lest there be any question of inadvertently imposing new burdens on crofters through "the community" being in place of "persons" in the Bill, I however incline to the view that my original wording was to be preferred. At this stage, I think that we shall have to wait and see how the provision works in practice. As there is some ambiguity in what is meant by "persons", there is however a great deal of virtue in the Minister putting firmly on the record his judgment of the intention. If the courts are called on to adjudge the matter, the words will be weighed with considerable care.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We believe that the amendment may risk jeopardising the ability of some

crofters to establish crofting trusts. I know that that is not what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) would wish.
Any requirement that a crofting trust represent a community may be interpreted to require that a community be shown to exist on the relevant property. Decisions of the Scottish land court have found that scattered crofts can be deemed not to form a community. It is therefore possible that crofters in the eastern highlands, where there are no common grazings and crofts are often some distance apart, may be frustrated in attempts to establish trusts if they cannot demonstrate that a community exists on their scattered holdings. The amendment could therefore remove from some crofters the ability to establish a trust, which is contrary to the Bill's principle.
Where a community can be shown to exist, our advice is that the terms "the community" and "persons" have no legal difference, and that in this context, the amendment is unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McFall: Although the Scottish Crofters Union does not hold the same view as the Minister on the point, I recognise the validity of his statement. The issue of the wider context still divides us a little, but in the light of his assurance and his very reasonable response—perhaps for the first time, which is very important at the end of this Parliament—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Mr. Maclennan: The importance of the Bill is not to be measured by its length or the fact that it is reaching its concluding stages at a time when the eyes of the public are diverted from the House to the political battle elsewhere. This is a significant little Bill. It was conceived in haste by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the history—to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred—of the report by the Public Accounts Committee, when it was chaired by Mr. Edward du Cann.
The evidence for my belief that the Bill was conceived in haste is that the Secretary of State seemed to be unaware of the extent of the obligations contained in the Bill. The earlier debates on the Bill showed much uncertainty about whether the Government were prepared to contemplate the transfer of the sporting and mineral rights with the crofting rights. Today, we have heard a helpful defining statement from the Government on that issue, which marks a development in their thinking.
The Bill has also been given a considerable fillip by the success of the Assynt Crofters Trust, which took a private initiative to acquire the north Assynt estate near Lochinver in my constituency in the early years of this Parliament. That initiative showed how crofters, coming together in a community to acquire the ownership of an estate, could help to benefit their own interests and those of the wider community, economically and socially. That precedent may start a landslide in due course.
The benefits of common acquisition by crofters of a sporting estate have been seen in north Assynt and further north in Sutherland, where the Talmine estate is being similarly transferred to the crofters on the initiative of the proprietor. That estate is in the neighbourhood of Melness, one of the remaining Gaelic communities in Sutherland, and the transfer is a welcome development. Other inquiries and initiatives have followed the north Assynt acquisition, and the Bill will play a useful part in changing attitudes and improving the prospects of crofters in the highlands.
It is clear that many holdings have better prospects of viable development if they are managed by the crofters, in their interest. Most crofters believe that the Secretary of State has been a good landlord, but the appurtenances of ownership in today's world—with the possibility of raising further finances on the security of an estate, or coming together to develop assets that cannot be developed in isolation—offer real advantages in certain areas.
In discussions earlier in our proceedings on the Bill, I have been at pains to ensure, most importantly, that transfers of ownership from the Secretary of State would take place only when there was an absolutely clear view within the community that they would be in the interests of the crofters. There should be no question of this becoming simply a way of disembarrassing the Secretary of State of a loss-making concern. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government's intention.
It is also important that, when the Crofters Commission, under clause 2, carries out tests of opinion so as to advise the Secretary of State whether it is in the interests of the crofting community that the transaction should take place, the tests should be completely transparent, deliberate, open and well considered by all affected.
It is satisfactory that the Crofters Commission has said that that would be its intention, although it has not yet defined what it would regard as a significant majority, or said whether it would wish to establish opinion by means of a secret ballot, and whether absentee crofters should be consulted. All those are significant matters that could affect the judgment whether the Crofters Commission has properly discharged its function of determining the will of the people affected.
I would be happier if those details had been given before the Bill reached its concluding phases in the House. It seems to me that a secret ballot is a desirable mode of determining the view of the community. I distrust opinions expressed at a single public meeting, with hands either raised or not raised. There is no doubt that, in many communities, there are people who have a dominant influence on opinion, and that others with as much right to be heard may feel less able to be forthright in expressing their views.
I do not think that a decision of such importance should be arrived at without the kind of deliberative approach that I have recommended from the beginning. Such a step would bring the process of transfer into disrepute, which would not be in accordance with the wishes either of the Secretary of State or of Parliament.
A great trust is being given to the Crofters Commission—to act as the principal adviser. In the past, the commission has had a quasi-judicial role, often

considering the interests of particular individuals and determining matters such as what to do about a particular crofter's rights in a common grazing, but I do not believe that any equivalent power has been given to it before.
Although the commission's role will be only advisory, it could turn out to be the critical role. It is hard to believe that its advice would be rejected by the Secretary of State. I therefore go firmly on the record as saying that I hope that the Crofters Commission will weigh its decisions in such matters with great care, and in no case rush to judgment.
I do not believe that the Bill need be the prelude to a rapid transfer of title. The initiative ought to come from the communities themselves. As the burdens of ownership are not to be ignored, they will approach the matter with great caution.
I conclude by expressing satisfaction that one of the last matters to come before this Parliament is the consideration of how best to assist the development of these estates, for they lie at the heart of the highland community. Their well-being remains key to the future of parts of our loved country, which is close to the hearts of all who represent it.

Mr. Wilson: The best that can be said of the Bill is that it is harmless. That cannot be said of much of the legislation that goes through the House, so I regard it as something of an achievement. A few small victories have been won in the Government's lifetime against the onward march of privatisation. It is a cause of satisfaction to some of us that two such measures have been in the highlands and islands context. Caledonian MacBrayne remains firmly in the public sector, in spite of three efforts by the Tories to flog it off, as do the highlands and islands estates of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department.
I well remember that the initial ploy was to privatisation the estates, to sell them on the open market, and to leave it to the fate of that market to decide who ended up owning the estates that were held in trust by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was repelled. The current Secretary of State returned with other proposals, which are embodied in the Bill.
The crucial element of the Bill is the lack of compulsion. The estates will be sold only if the people who live on them want them to be sold, and they can be sold only to the local community. Those two advances are vast, and they transform the nature of the legislation compared with the original concept in the 1980s. The first comfort is that there is no compulsion, and the second is that there will be no Tories to carry through the legislation. Even in its much muted form, this legislation would be dangerous in the wrong hands. It would be possible for the element of pressure, if not the element of compulsion, to return.
The general rule of thumb for land legislation in the highlands and islands is summed up in the old saying, "The law favours the landlords, because the landlords made the law." That has literally been true for most of Parliament's history, particularly in the other place. However, during one period in its history, that was not the dominant theme. From the 1880s to the 1920s, Governments of all persuasions were compelled to listen to the voices of the people instead of to the voices of the landlords, because of the pressure for land and the pressure from people who were without land.
When we hear rubbish such as that spouted by the Secretary of State in Stornoway a couple of weeks ago about the sacred rights of property, it is worth noting that the crofting system is probably the biggest incursion into the rights of private property for which the House has ever legislated. To an enormous extent, crofting law removed the rights of private landowners, removed the market-led approach to the ownership of land in the highlands, and certainly removed the right of landowners to act capriciously towards tenants whom they had previously evicted at free will and subjected to various other indignities.
The crofting laws changed all that, and did so in response to the pressures from the people who lived on the land. Crofting laws were by no means perfect, for some of the reasons to which I alluded earlier—for instance, they left sporting and mineral rights outside the rights of communities, and large areas of the highlands and islands are not subject to them.
We are dealing with estates owned by the Secretary of State on behalf of the nation and, in debating a Bill dealing specifically with these lands, it would be amiss not to recognise that the only reason the lands are in common ownership today is that landless ex-service men—many of whom were returning from the first world war—were prepared to struggle, to fight and to demand the right to remain on the land, and were not prepared to be driven off to the four winds at the whim of any landlord. It is because they took that stand that the state was obliged to intervene to acquire land in areas where there was great congestion and great demand, but where land was in the ownership of people whose sole interest was to clear as many people as possible from it and to use it for private economic and sporting interests.
It is because ordinary people in the communities stood up to be counted, often physically resisting the forces of landlordism, that the state was obliged to intervene and to bring the estates into public ownership. That is why we have Scottish Office-owned estates to discuss today—because, in the early part of this century, men and women alike were prepared to go to gaol, to physically resist and to say that the rights of common people were greater than the rights of any landowner or Government.
I salute today the people whose struggles created the publicly owned estates in the highlands and islands, and allowed succeeding generations to live on those lands. The only reason there are healthy and lively communities in the crofting areas of Scotland today is that that struggle was engaged in and those rights secured.
One of the problems was that the crofting laws did not cover the whole of the highlands and islands. One score that I would like to see settled while I am still in this House is the omission of the island of Arran from the crofting laws. It is a particular irony that today we have two Ministers on the Front Bench—one by the name of Robertson, and the other by the name of Douglas-Hamilton.
When the crofting laws were introduced in 1886, they included the county of Bute, which at that time included the island of Arran. The only reason why Arran was taken out of the protection of the crofting laws was that there was a Tory Member of Parliament for Bute at that time named Robertson and a landowner—who needs no introduction to the Minister of State—called the Duke of

Hamilton. Each of them used his lobbying power in this Chamber and in another place to get Arran excluded from the crofting laws.
The result of that successful piece of vested interest was that, instead of coming within the crofting system—in which case, it would be a different community today—Arran was excluded. Right down to the present day, Arran is run on a feudal basis by some of the most unpleasant and interventionist landlords in Scotland, who constantly use the powers open to them to extract money and to implement feudal power against the people who live on the island.
What a wonderful thing it would be if at least those who are renting on the island of Arran under the smallholders legislation were to be given the status of crofters and the protection of crofting tenancy. The same argument applies in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), where people are rented under the legislation. They are crofters in all but name, but they do not have the protection of the crofting laws. That is one of the elements that will be contained in real crofting reform legislation in the future.
This is only the start. The Secretary of State thought he could pull a publicity stunt by saying that he was addressing the highland land question. What an unlikely thing for a Tory to do—giving crofters the right to buy their own land.
The legislation does not begin to nibble at the highland land question, because it deals only with the publicly owned estates, while the abuses in the highlands and islands take place in the privately owned estates. Once the principle is established that communities can buy their land on a communal basis from the landowner—presumably at 15 times the rental value—no legitimate argument separates publicly owned from privately owned crofting land.
The challenge is to introduce genuine crofting reform legislation as soon as possible, to bring all crofting land under a pan-highlands and islands crofting trust, to extend the area under crofting tenure, to give people the wonderful protection that was created under the Crofters Holdings Act 1886 and to give them all the resources of their own community. That is the way in which to transform the social and economic base of the remoter parts of the highlands and islands.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have been looking at the Hansard report of Second Reading, which took place at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Montrose on 17 February. Here we are today, on 18 March, which goes to show that, where there is a will, and a legislative opportunity, a way can be found to address matters relating to crofting and the crofting counties. Perhaps this sets a useful benchmark for the future in terms of the additional legislation of which many of us would be in favour. The generally supportive spirit in which the legislation has progressed has been notable and welcome.
The Bill itself, however, remains permissive rather than prescriptive, and while that may be the best way in which to structure the legislation, it leaves a lot unsaid, albeit deliberately so. We have had various clarifications—we had a few more this afternoon in response to questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—about intent and the meaning of words, but such intent and interpretation do not appear in the Bill.
I strongly underscore my hon. Friend's point, that it will be absolutely crucial, for the practical implementation of the Bill, when individual applications appear before the putative crofting trust, whatever shape that may take, that the quality of analysis carried out by the Crofters Commission, and the transparency of the advice given to the Secretary of State of the day, should carry the confidence of the local communities.
My hon. Friend referred to one obvious shortfall being the lack of detail on what constitutes a majority, and how it is to be weighed and recorded. A straight numerical majority, even if one could agree on what constitutes the electorate—does one count the absentee crofters, for example?—would not be a basis on which a crofting trust application could proceed. A 51 to 49 per cent. division of opinion would be absolutely disastrous, and in those circumstances I would be flabbergasted if the commission were to recommend approval.
Equally, in considering the division of opinion in any crofting trust community, it would be right to take into account the age profile of those for and against, because of the longer-term implications. One would also have to take cognisance of the fact that in the longer term, once trust status has been achieved, considerations may arise from the bit-by-bit disposal by the trust itself of some parts of the trust lands.
Assynt has been somewhat of a trail-blazer in that respect: it has disposed of some extremely small marginal bits that have not affected the nature or critical mass of its trust; but suppose some future trust got into financial difficulties because of some of the burdens that it had inherited, and started to realise commercially some of its property—assuming that that was allowable under the deeds drawn up when trust status was achieved—on the open market. Those factors could have far-reaching long-term effects.
In approving this permissive legislation, we are right to place it on record that the devil will be in the detail. It will be important for Members who represent highlands and islands constituencies and the crofting counties generally, as well as the commission, to keep a close eye on applications. We must remember the Scottish Crofters Union's original submission to the Government's consultation paper, which said that the one thing of which we can all be certain is that there is no simple or single solution. It is right that the legislation should be permissive in recognising that reality, but hon. Members must lay down markers for the future.
This legislative event is significant and must be seen in tandem with the discussions and decisions at the last meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention in Stornoway. The Secretary of State has agreed to set up a working group to consider the wider issues of land reform in the highlands.
An important decision in the other place was reached as a result of a test case over feudal rights and pre-emption rights, involving representatives of the then district councils of Moray and of Ross and Cromarty. One of those events has already had a significant legal impact, which will in due course affect the Bill. The other, depending on future meetings of the convention, could have a significant impact on future legislation.
Now that the issue is up and running legislatively, and in terms of the national debate and of political and parliamentary discussion, I hope that there will be windows of opportunity for further legislation. However, such legislation would be more likely to receive an earlier and more open window, as well as a more sensitive and informed discussion, if it were conducted in a legislative body in Edinburgh rather than in Westminster. The matter would be an early candidate for legislative priority if, after the general election, we achieve a Scottish Parliament. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but we have much further to go.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I will be brief. I spoke on this subject in the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, but I did not serve on the Standing Committee, because of other commitments.
The Benches are hardly packed; some might ask where the passion is. I assure hon. Members that nothing arouses greater passions in the highlands and islands of Scotland than land use and ownership. Many hon. Members could recite words from folk songs and poems about the people who were condemned by the black-faced ram and the factor's fire-raiser. After the highland clearances, there had to be radical reforms to enable people to come back to the highlands and islands. Those are the historical roots of the issue.
I welcome the Bill generally, but, like the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), I think that it is permissive, and that we have to look beyond that. From examining the legislation and reading the comments made both in Committee and elsewhere, it seems that many legal niceties will emerge. It will be like the planning permission arguments that hon. Members often experience, where some people want one attitude to be taken, but others feel that it is wrong. It is a minefield.
When I wrote to the Minister of State, he replied that he did not think that it was a lost opportunity. I think it is, because we could have addressed the argument about the feudal system in the highlands and islands. As has been said, the former councils of Moray and of Ross and Cromarty did much work in trying to resolve some of the difficulties, and a concession was eventually made. Beyond that, the issue of feudal superiority will still apply to many people.
Whoever is in power after the general election, we should take account of what was said at the Highlands and Islands Convention in Stornoway. Neither Front-Bench spokesman was present at the convention, but several hon. Members who are here were. Dr. Jim Hunter, who is much respected, has offered to put together a paper on land use and ownership that should be considered in future legislation. It is not enough to deal with the matter piece by piece; we need a radical approach to crofting, land use and land ownership in Scotland.
The land register that was set up has not reached its conclusion. It was supposed to have done that by this year. It will be another 10 years before we have a full land register in Scotland. In what will probably be my last speech in this Parliament, I have to say that the land issue must be addressed much more seriously by all the political parties. I am proud that my party established a land commission under Professor MacInnes of Aberdeen university, who acted in a neutral capacity and took much


evidence from around the country. That is a helpful contribution to the debate. Without land, we can do nothing. We need land and people to build a more secure society; the two go together.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Although the issues have had a good airing at the Grand Committee in Montrose, on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight, it is only right that I should respond to some of the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked of the success of the crofting trusts at Assynt and Borve. Their success, with that of Annishadder, has demonstrated that the time is right to offer tenants on the Secretary of State's estate the opportunity to benefit from land ownership.
The response to the Government's consultation paper last year showed that there was considerable potential interest. The Crofting Trusts Advisory Service has commissioned three pilot studies into the feasibility of three possible local trusts. It is too early to say whether that will translate into specific proposals, but there is a growing body of opinion that that is the way forward. We need to be in a position to respond.
The hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson) said that the legislation might not be used. Perhaps he was thinking of the case of Skye and Raasay, when crofters responded to an earlier initiative in 1990 by deciding that they would prefer to remain tenants of the Secretary of State rather than setting up a crofting trust. He will agree that times have changed, and that there is more interest in the trust option. The setting up of trusts at Assynt and Borve, and at Annishadder in Skye, demonstrates that it is a feasible option for crofting communities.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) wondered whether the Secretary of State's crofting tenants should have a right to buy their estates as a whole. Individual crofters already have a statutory right to buy their crofts. To give crofters a right to buy an estate as a whole would be feasible only if the Bill defined precisely which crofters would enjoy the right, and the sort of body that would have to be formed to take over ownership.
The Government believe that it is preferable for the Bill to allow flexibility, so that different approaches can be tried in different areas. The Bill must allow the Secretary of State the right to refuse proposals from crofting trusts, in order to safeguard crofters' interests—for example, if proposals are judged not to be properly representative of crofting interests.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also asked for trusts to be allowed to sell off their land and assets. That will be a matter for the trust. Trusts will no doubt consider carefully the effect of selling or leasing land. The loss of land will need to be weighed against the possible benefits, such as providing a source of money with which to undertake development projects in the interests of the local community.
Moreover, crofting legislation provides protection for the crofting interest, as the land remains in crofting tenure unless the landowner, in this case the trust itself, successfully applies to the Scottish land court to have it resumed. In considering applications for resumption,

the court must be persuaded that the resumption is required for some reasonable purpose in relation to the good of a particular croft estate as a whole or of the public interest.
Some Opposition Members asked why the Bill was not being extended to cover privately owned estates.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to raise one point before the Minister moves on. In the example that he cited, the land court and resumption would come into play. It is clear that he sees the potential for longer term difficulties.
Suppose that a crofting trust, through no fault of its own, or perhaps through bad management or a change in personnel between its formation and several years or decades down the track, finds itself facing financial difficulty or perhaps ruin. Things will be very much in the lap of the gods, or at least the judicial gods of the Scottish Land Court. The outcome will depend on whether the court judged such straitjacket financial circumstances as sufficient reason for granting a resumption order.
Let us hope that it would not come to that. No Secretary of State would grant trust status to something that might not be viable. We are taking a slight gamble on some of the applications that will be made in the next few years, because the circumstances could look markedly different a few years down the track.

Mr. Robertson: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but, as he says, it is difficult to legislate for something that may or may not happen. It is unlikely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would allow any trust to go forward that had not proved itself financially viable not only in the short and medium term but in the long term. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by that.
The Bill extends to privately owned estates. Its purpose is to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to dispose of his estates. There is no legal impediment to prevent any private landowner from selling his large crofting trusts if he wishes to do so. It would be wrong for the Government to seek to compel landowners to sell.
There is also the question of land under the control of the Forestry Commission. There is no legal barrier to prevent the commission from disposing of land acquired under the Forestry Acts to a crofting or community trust. Where the land is in crofting tenure and has not been planted, the Government will positively encourage the Forestry Commission to look sympathetically at disposing of the land to a suitable crofting trust.
In the case of existing or newly planted woodland, a number of options could be considered under the Forestry Commission's recent disposal programme and its recently announced extension to the sponsorship arrangements for preferred sales to communities for social and economic development.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke about the mechanism for ensuring that transfer took place only where there was demonstrable local support. I assume that the hon. Gentleman had it in mind that there should be a ballot, and that a transfer should take place only if there was more than a specified percentage of support.
It is clearly right that there should be substantial support for any crofting trust proposal before it goes ahead. It would be a mistake to write any specific figure


into the Bill. Should the figure be a simple majority, say, two thirds, or should 90 per cent. or 99 per cent support be required? Who should vote—those with crofting rights, or all adults? Then there is the problem of absentees. Should crofters who live in Canada or Glasgow, or whose employment takes them away from the croft for most of the year, have a vote? Should the percentage be calculated as a proportion of those who vote or of the electorate as a whole?
Before agreeing to transfer any estate to a crofting trust, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must consult the Crofters Commission, which in turn must have regard both to the general interests of the crofting community in the district and to the views of the crofters. That will ensure that these matters are addressed, but it gives more flexibility to take account of local circumstances.
As my noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay made clear in another place, we have no set views on whether a minimum or maximum size of trust will have to be prescribed. A trust must clearly involve more than one croft holding, and, ideally, at least 10 holdings might be desirable, but we will consider each proposal on its merits. Similarly, we have no upper limit in mind. In our view, trusts are particularly suited to local communities, but a trust for larger areas, such as Skye or the Western Isles, could certainly be considered.
The Bill does not prescribe the size or structure of a crofting trust. It is important, as I and my noble Friend have stressed, that any proposal meets the needs of local communities. The Bill offers sufficient flexibility to deal with a variety of local solutions. It would be open to communities to propose trusts which consisted of a whole estate, part of an estate or an aggregation of several estates. The Secretary of State would listen to representations from any crofter on an estate, any part of which was the subject of a proposal to establish a crofting trust.
As for whether all crofters will have to become members of the trust, if, after consultation with the Crofters Commission and due consideration, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides to transfer an estate to a crofting trust, all the land owned by him in that estate will become the property of the trust. However, it will always be possible for an individual crofter to use his statutory right to buy his own croft land from the trust. In addition, depending on the precise type of body established, it might be for individual crofters themselves to decide whether they wish to become members of the trust, although they should all have the opportunity to join.
As for whether trusts will need to be based on townships with common grazings, the idea of common ownership through a trust certainly makes most sense where there are one or more townships with common grazings, and most of the land in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's estate would fall into that category. However, we will not rule out a trust based on a series of separate crofts without any township common land if that is what the local crofters want.
On Second Reading, the question of a pan-highlands and islands trust was raised. It is intended that a pan-highlands and islands trust will be a possibility under the provisions of the Bill. Whether such a trust would

make sense in practice will depend very much on the nature of the proposal and the extent to which it enjoys sufficient support from the crofters themselves.
The primary purpose of our initiative is to give ownership and control of the crofting estates to the crofters who live on them, and we would have to be satisfied that any pan-highland and islands trust achieved that objective. We would not be interested in a pan-highlands and islands trust if it meant imposing a remote bureaucracy on reluctant crofters.
My noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay met the crofting land trust steering group on 7 February to discuss the consultants' report. The meeting was useful, but it would be premature for the Government to offer a view on the feasibility of a crofting land trust. We are talking here about a report by the consultants to those bodies which commissioned the work, and there is no actual proposal as yet.
Hon. Members asked why the Government should not interfere with the rights of pre-emption, which have been raised throughout our proceedings. If the Government took no action, the transfer of land to a proposed trust could be delayed while the question of any rights of pre-emption was sorted out, or even frustrated, if the inheritors to title decided to exercise their right.
That would create uncertainty, and would be contrary to Government policy, so the Bill abolishes any rights of pre-emption that might exist over the land in the public interest. However, to be fair to the persons who may enjoy such rights, the Government will consider claims for compensation, and the Bill provides a right of appeal to the Scottish Land Court.
Where a particular individual can demonstrate that he or she has a legitimate right of pre-emption, stemming either from the 1919 Act or from the title deeds for the land in question, it is only right and proper for the Government to consider compensation. In considering the amount that might be appropriate, the Government will take account of the circumstances of the case.
Our understanding is that such rights as do exist are simply a right to have first refusal to buy, usually at market value, and it may be that, in the context of crofting land, such a right would have little value. At the end of the day, however, if the person is dissatisfied, it will be for the Scottish Land Court to decide whether a right exists, and the level of compensation that should be paid.
Tracing persons who have a statutory right of pre-emption can be a very lengthy and expensive process, and it will often be simply impossible. That is why the Bill puts a duty on the Government to publicise the transfer, so that any persons who consider that they have a right of pre-emption can lodge a claim for compensation. However, the Government are prepared to give an assurance that they will, in practice, notify any persons whom they think, on the basis of the information available, have a right of pre-emption.
The Bill allows four months for a claim to be lodged. Since all that will be required at this stage is the simple initial notification of a claim, four months would seem to be adequate. Any subsequent discussions between the Government and the parties concerned—for example, to obtain more information in support of their claim—would not be affected by this four-month period.
The Bill places a duty on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to advertise the disposal in such a manner as appears to him appropriate. Flexibility is


necessary, as the precise arrangement for advertisements will need to be according to the nature of the estate. For example, rather different arrangements may be necessary when a whole estate is purchased than when part of an estate that is still in the same family ownership is involved. Each case will have to be looked at separately in order to identify the best means of advertising for the estate in question.
Unfortunately, there are no established principles for valuing rights of pre-emption that could easily be incorporated into legislation. My right hon. Friend will consider all evidence submitted by claimants in respect of compensation for loss of rights of pre-emption. When agreement cannot be reached between the Government and the person concerned, provision has been made for appeal to the Scottish Land Court, which has considerable experience in dealing with crofting matters. We believe that the court is best placed to consider the facts of the case, and decide on an appropriate sum.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the Crofters Commission before disposing of any of his crofting property to a particular crofting trust. In giving its advice, the commission is required to have regard to the general interests of the crofting community in the district in question, the views of crofters in that district, and any other matters it considers to be relevant.
That gives the commission an important role, which is entirely right, given its position as statutory adviser to the Secretary of State on crofting matters and its knowledge and expertise. My right hon. Friend will therefore wish to give careful consideration to the views of the commission, but, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State must have the discretion to make the decision that he thinks is right.
During the debate, it was asked whether the Crofters Commission would be required to hold a ballot of those crofters who are affected before giving its advice on their views. That will be entirely a matter for the commission, which has a great deal of experience of consulting crofting communities in the course of its day-to-day work.
The Crofting Trusts Advisory Service was set up to provide advice to crofting communities interested in establishing trusts on public or private estates. It is doing valuable work in providing that assistance. Advice of the sort it offers will be vital to those who wish to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill to establish trusts on former Scottish Office estates. The longer-term future of CTAS will be decided in the light of developments following the successful passage of the Bill.
Iain MacAskill, chairman of the Crofters Commission, has made it clear that the commission has taken no position on the relative merits of different trusts. The commission has provided advice to successive Secretaries of State for four decades, and is well-placed to ensure that the interests of the crofting community and the views of crofters are properly represented in advice given to the Secretary of State. We see no need, therefore, for any additional body with the inevitable additional bureaucracy and resources that it would require.
The Bill will provide the necessary powers to put into effect my right hon. Friend's crofting trusts initiative. The initiative has received widespread support from all parties in the House, which support was shown on Second Reading in the sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, in Committee, and today on Third Reading and Report.
The Bill will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Crofters Commission, to transfer his crofting estates to bodies that are representative of the crofting interests in the property. It will allow my right hon. Friend to provide financial assistance towards the costs involved in establishing such a body. The Bill also ensures that any rights of pre-emption over the property are extinguished and makes provision for compensation to be paid in appropriate cases. This is a sound measure, which will devolve real responsibility to local communities to take decisions on the future of the land on which they live and work.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 34

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 16, line 33, leave out '1 to 24' and insert '1, 3 to 24'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 16, line 35, at end insert—
'(2A) Section 2 shall come into force on the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.'.

Dr. Godman: I have been advised that I should be brief, and I always follow wise advice.
The effect of the amendment is that section 2—now clause 2 of the Bill—would come into effect on the Bill's receiving Royal Assent. The reason for the amendment is powerful: the Bill provides that many sections will come into effect on such days as the Secretary of State will appoint; my amendment would ensure that there was no delay in bringing into force the provisions of section 2, which determines which payments will be affected by the Act.
What is the reason for the postponement? The Court of Session and the sheriff court in Scotland have co-extensive jurisdiction over cases for compensation. There are certain jurisdictional advantages in taking a case to the Court of Session rather than the sheriff court. The Minister is a lawyer and, while he may not have a degree in Scottish law, I know that he has some knowledge of Scottish law. Although I do not know what pertains in English and Welsh courts, a disadvantage in going to the Court of Session is that it can be difficult to stop proceedings in that court. Postponing matters in the sheriff court can also be troublesome, but the problem is particularly applicable to the Court of Session.
Given the area that I represent, The Minister will not be surprised to learn that asbestosis is all too common among my constituents. If Royal Assent and commencement were to coincide, would he not agree that that would obviate all clawback decisions that would arise if there was a time lag of some six to seven months between the two dates?
I should have said—although I suspect the Minister knows it—that I am not a lawyer and have had no legal training in Scottish law. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a real problem where cases are due to be heard. Several of my constituents have expressed deep concern about what they, as lay men and women, see as legal, technical and procedural problems. One man—a skilled tradesman who was severely injured at work a few years ago, who has a wife and children and who has not worked since the injury—asked me, "Why should there be these delays? Why October? Why not April?" Those are reasonable questions for the Minister to answer.
Mr. Frank Maguire, a Glasgow lawyer who advises Clydeside Action on Asbestos, wrote to the Minister as recently as 13 March and, after posting the letter to the

Minister, he kindly gave me a copy. I know that masses of correspondence fall on the Minister's desk, but I should like to remind him of what Frank Maguire—a fellow lawyer—had to say. He wrote:
While many personal injury lawyers are not advancing cases in anticipation of the Act coming into force so that their case is not settled or determined as at that date there are cases where trials have been fixed.
Although he is a good friend of mine, I have to say that he writes like a lawyer.
The number of cases about which we are speaking is therefore limited.
I do not think that the Minister will challenge that statement. I cannot speak about what is happening in England and Wales, but in Scotland the number of cases is relatively small.
Mr. Maguire continues:
Having regard to the limited number we cannot see how the Act cannot apply to cases which have not been settled or determined at the date of Royal Assent and CRU recoupment applied after October 1997.
He states that there is a precedent for that, and continues:
While we appreciate you may not have been responsible for the original 1989 Act the Government then had no qualms in bringing into force an Act in the middle of 1989 which it applied to accidents or diseases after 1st January 1989.
I tabled amendment No. 1 because of my serious concerns for some of my constituents. The case of a young man in Port Glasgow is now being dealt with in the Court of Session and the sheriff court by a firm of lawyers in Greenock, who are highly skilled in such cases. Another man, who is an ambulance driver, was badly injured. He, too, is concerned about such delays.
I expect a positive response from the Minister, to make the dates of Royal Assent and commencement the same. If he were to do that, he would earn the gratitude of many people in constituencies such as mine.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned his constituent's simple question on why the provisions of the Bill come into effect only in October and not on Royal Assent—I think that he mentioned April. That request is straightforward. It is, "Please, let us have the Bill in force now, and let it catch all the claims that are in the pipeline as of today or the day of Royal Assent." I readily understand, accept and appreciate the force of that argument, but there are real and considerable practical difficulties.
On 12 March 1997, after discussion in Standing Committee on that and other matters, I wrote to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and sent a copy of the letter to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow as a member of that Committee. In it, I explained that, in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish gave undertakings that there would be extensive consultation with all interested parties on the detailed regulations that would be consequent to the Bill's passage. Those undertakings were specifically asked for by the Opposition. The Labour party tabled about 10 amendments on consultation, and undertakings were given.
Therefore, even if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow were to persuade Opposition Front Benchers to release us from those undertakings, the undertakings were given not only to the Labour party but to the world at large. The first difficulty is that the Government and Ministers are committed to consultation. Moreover, it is important that there should be consultation. There are important legal and technical issues—as I know the person in the street and the injured party will appreciate—and, in the interests of all those involved in the process, it is important that we get the regulations right.
As I explained, if we are to have proper consultation, it is probably necessary to allow the months of April and May for the process. "Consultation" means just that; it does not mean hitting people over the head with a tablet of stone and saying, "That's what we'll do." Therefore, it would be wrong to think that the process of drafting the regulations can be properly advanced beyond a preliminary stage until the consultation process has been completed.
In the timetable in the letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Fife, Central—which was copied to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—I stated that we envisage that the regulations will be drafted in June and July, possibly extending into August. Our intention is that, at the beginning of the summer recess, the legal framework will be in place so that the legislation can be implemented from the beginning of October 1997.
It is a matter, however, not simply of legislating but of rewriting the software that runs the compensation recovery unit's computer systems. Although we can attempt to do both tasks in parallel, the people who deal with the programmes complain bitterly when we attempt to do so, because it infinitely complicates their job, adds to expense and can cause delays in itself. They prefer to have the rules made by the House in final-cast form before translating them into the necessary instructions and software for the computer programmes that run the system.
5.15 pm
There will also be some administrative adjustments. However, I stress to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that one of the striking features of the evidence given to the Social Security Committee on the workings of the compensation recovery unit—very possibly some of the people who gave the evidence were slightly surprised to be giving it—was that, administratively, the system worked well. Accordingly, we think that not only consultation but a process of drafting the regulations and subsequently writing the software is necessary, so that the system will come into effect in October in a ready state that will not cause any technical or administrative hiccups for those who must deal with it.
Those who deal with personal injury actions—whether on behalf of the plaintiff and trade unions or defendants and insurers—cannot settle or dispose of cases under the old or the new rules without the vital certificate from the compensation recovery unit. If that process were not to work reliably and efficiently, considerable difficulty and inconvenience—if not chaos—would be caused. I therefore suggest to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that—although I understand the point of view of his constituent, who would say, "Why can't we do it more quickly?"—there are real practical reasons, which I have partly explained in writing and amplified today, why a process of six months is necessary after Royal Assent, which I anticipate will occur soon.
I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman that that necessity will cause considerable difficulties for those with claims in the pipeline. The Government intend, and the legislation has been cast, to ensure that, on the day the provisions come into force at the beginning of October, all cases in the pipeline at that point that have not been settled or determined will be caught by the new rules of the new regime. If they are settled or determined before the beginning of October, they will be covered under the current regime. I readily accept and appreciate that that causes concern. Many hon. Members have written to me about specific problems of constituents, who ask, "What do I do between now and October?"
Individuals must take proper legal advice. It may well be that the change of rules will not affect their specific case to their advantage. We are talking about some hard cases that were identified—particularly by the Select Committee, and particularly the asbestosis cases from the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—when the old regime was particularly harsh and unfortunate. In other cases, there will be no financial difference, whichever way individuals settle. Therefore, constituents must first take legal advice on whether they will benefit.
If an individual will be affected and it is a matter of settling, he must determine what he can do to postpone the settlement—if that is the advice—until after the beginning of October and the introduction of the new regime. It was once easier to do that than in these modern interventionist days, when the rules of court encourage progress. I have no doubt that, if one has commenced proceedings, it will be more difficult to postpone than if one has not. If one has not commenced proceedings and is within the limitation period, one is entitled to dilly-dally if necessary. One is ultimately at risk of being penalised with costs if one dilly-dallies too much, but if one has not yet started proceedings, there is an opportunity to slow up the process. Most plaintiffs hate delay. They say bitterly to their lawyers, "Why doesn't the process operate more quickly? Why can't we get it through faster?"
Let us suppose that postponement is not possible because proceedings have already begun. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, with more generosity than accuracy, that I might have some knowledge of Scots law. I have only a layman's understanding of what takes place in Scotland, so I am not in a position to comment in detail on the differences in procedure and litigation between the Court of Session and the sheriff court. Not having practised at the English Bar for nearly three years, I may also have forgotten—or not had occasion to attend to—the precise evolution of the rules of the Supreme Court and the county court.
In the bad old days, once a writ had been issued, one had a year in which to serve it. In other words, a person could do nothing for a year and probably even renew the writ within the limitation period. So the plaintiff, in the driving seat, could decide to park the car if he really wanted to do so.
Under the modern system of more instructions, both through the rules of court and through the operation of the listing procedures and the application of automatic directions, there is indeed a problem—people may be driven to proceed more quickly.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I detect that the Minister is being helpful, but he will realise that, when a case has already been prepared for court, the employers will apply pressure—even though the lawyers working on behalf of the victim may want a postponement. Because they stand to benefit, however, the employers will press for a case to be heard.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Ironically, one of the beneficial consequences of the Bill will be the strong financial incentive, for the first time, for the defendant's insurers to speed up the process. That will happen after October, because recoupment and liability stop at settlement or determination. So for the first time, once the Bill comes into effect, there will be a direct financial incentive for the defendant's insurers to press for haste.
As is well known, some such insurers have before now dragged out litigation on the basis that, five years down the line, the plaintiff may have died, or become exasperated, or gone away, or decided to accept a pittance, or not turned up on the day. It may have become easier to buy the plaintiff off by then, and in any case the money allocated will come from the sixth financial year, not the first or second—even though the latter might have been more just and commonsensical. That is all part of the workings of the insurer's mind.
In short, this legislation will act as a powerful financial incentive for insurers to get a move on, because recoupment will be more substantial. That is a good thing, but it may be awkward and unhelpful for the class of person to whom the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) referred, who may be wondering what will happen between April and October. Such a person, who may have begun the court process, may want to stop it reaching court before October because that will be to his advantage.
There may be quite powerful tools in the hands of the defendant's insurers, enabling them to make life awkward for the plaintiff. They can make generous payments—one can only hope, generous enough to compensate for the circumstances. At least in England and Wales—I cannot speak for Scotland—Lord Woolf's inquiries into speeding up the civil justice system have all been directed to the sort of judicial activism that speeds up these processes. In this context, that has led to a problem.
One of the difficulties inherent in a substantial change to the law, as this is, is that some people will be adversely affected if they are on one side of the line rather than the other. I can see the force of the argument for activating the measure earlier, but I cannot carry out the undertakings that the Government have given and, at the same time, implement the proposals earlier.
To make matters more complicated, I can well understand the purpose of the amendments from a purely humanitarian point of view. We all have constituents in this position; they tell us that the Bill is necessary and represents an improvement. It rights a harsh injustice for the limited class of people whom the Select Committee rightly identified as needing assistance from legislation. I regret to say, however, that complications arise when some people are caught out by the timing.
An additional problem is the fact that the amendments do not even accomplish what they are meant to. I regret to say that they would bring about general chaos, with

unknowable consequences. Amendment No. 1 means that clause 2 alone would come into effect on Royal Assent. Clause 2 reads:
This Act applies in relation to compensation payments made on or after the day on which this section comes into force".
The problem with the amendment is that nothing else would come into force until the Secretary of State issued the appropriate commencement orders—I refer at this point to amendment No. 2.
The results would be complications beyond measure. One is that the clause in the Bill which repeals part IV of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 would not be implemented. We would thus have one law prescribing one regime, and a later section of the new Act suggesting that there was a new regime in force. Unless the Secretary of State then advanced the process of implementing the remaining sections, there would be no machinery to apply the new regime—no framework for regulations to come into force. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not have the power to make such regulations unless the rest of the Act was in force, too.
I cannot predict what the courts might make of that. I can only respectfully suggest that it would generate such uncertainty that I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow would want to place us in that position. Litigation and/or chaos would be left to resolve the situation; it certainly would be an unfortunate one.
I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire for us to hurry up and activate the legislation at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot see how to do that practically. I am stuck with the undertakings given by the Minister in the other place. What is more, the 1948 scheme was riddled with anomalies and difficulties until it was swept away, on 1 January 1989, by the present arrangements. I suggest, in the interests of the expeditious disposal of personal injuries litigation, that we get the rules and regulations right and make them fair and comprehensible for all involved.
Accepting the force behind what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to achieve, I invite him not to press the amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.

Dr. Godman: In mitigation I might point out that I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentary draftsman. I sincerely hope, however, that the Crown Office in Scotland will be made aware of the Minister's remarks today so that, if need be, advice can be given to sheriffs and judges in the Court of Session—

Mr. Roger Evans: I do not know whether it is right for a Minister to attempt to give guidance to an independent Scottish judge, but I undertake carefully to examine what can be done.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister. He might mention my concerns in passing to his colleagues at the Scottish Office. I am sure that they will give him the appropriate advice.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 17, line 15, at end insert—
'3A. Any payment to the injured person arising out of their contracting mesothelioma.'.
Mesothelioma is a pernicious form of cancer. I am not a medical man; my doctorate results from a thesis on the development of steam trawlers in the port of Aberdeen and elsewhere. This, however, is a serious matter and the prognosis for victims is almost always grim. I believe that there is no cure for the ailment.
In relation to the pursuit of a legal claim on behalf of a mesothelioma victim, is it the case, or was it the case hitherto, that if such a victim died before he was examined by a medical specialist employed by the Benefits Agency, any legal claim would fall, despite the fact that the death certificate stated that the death was due to mesothelioma? I sincerely hope that that is not the case now, but I seem to recall that it was hitherto. What is the situation if an examination has not been carried out? In Scotland, any death resulting from the ailment legally requires a post mortem, so a death certificate could state that mesothelioma was the cause of death.

Mr. Roger Evans: May I seek clarification in the interests of attempting to answer that question? Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a claim for some form of benefit from the Benefits Agency, or a legal claim for damages?

Dr. Godman: I do not wish to be awkward, but both cases interest me. Naturally, the question concerning benefits looms larger than the second question. I hope that a death certificate is a legally valid document in terms of determining a person's death and that a legal claim would not fall because the person had died.
My hon. Friends with Clydeside constituencies and I share an abiding concern for the poor, unfortunate people who fall victim to mesothelioma. Victims and their families must be protected, not just by local Members of Parliament, but by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has a long and honourable record in that regard. As the Minister well knows, my hon. Friend and I have been closely associated with Clydeside Action on Asbestos, a remarkable group of people who came together because of illnesses to which they and their families had fallen victim. They are remarkable campaigners, on behalf not just of their friends and families but of people throughout Scotland and elsewhere.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that the asbestosis issue interested him because,
regrettably, Clydebank in my constituency is the national leader for male deaths from mesothelioma. Our death rate is 11 times the national average because of the deathly cocktail in our background of shipyards, ship repairing and an asbestos factory.
Delete "asbestos factory", and my hon. Friend could have been speaking about my constituency. I am sure that similar problems are also characteristic of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) in Yorkshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie went on to say:
Between 1976 and 1991, in Greater Glasgow, there were 500 deaths from mesothelioma alone … According to the Government, the people who died came into contact with the dust between 50 and 60 years ago; as has been said, asbestos-related diseases are by far the biggest industrial killer, and the problem is getting worse.
In specific relation to my amendment, my hon. Friend said:
there will be between 1,300 and 3,000 deaths from mesothelioma in 20 years' time".
An eminent consultant with whom I spoke in Inverclyde Royal hospital trust in Greenock this morning said that, in his opinion—he deals with about 10 cases a year and says that the number is increasing—we shall reach a plateau in 2005. We shall not see the end of the disease for a considerable time yet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that that figure
dwarfs all industrial deaths, deaths on the roads and deaths from any similar cause. If we take into account the fact that there are estimated to be one or two deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer for every death caused by mesothelioma, we realise the scale of the continuing problem."—[Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 188.]
Mr. Frank Maguire made a similar remark in his letter to the Minister. He said:
With respect, you misunderstand the distinction of mesothelioma from other cases. It is becoming increasingly the case that the younger claimants are suffering from mesothelioma. We are now encountering cases where a mesothelioma victim is in their 40s. There would therefore be and are a large and increasing number of cases where there are claims for wage loss and where the victim has been in full employment. The Act will do nothing other than hinder resolution of these cases.
The problem is found not only in shipyards. Two local men came to see me last Friday at my surgery. They are Caledonian MacBrayne employees and crew members of the Pioneer. They went on board the vessel recently and became alarmed when they saw a joiner working, equipped with a respirator and goggles. When they asked him why he was so equipped, they were told that there was strong evidence of asbestos in the deckhead materials lining the formica. There was a substance called ammonite, which gives rise to asbestos dust. That was confirmed by an official of Caledonian MacBrayne, who stated that health and safety inspectors had been called in to test for asbestos.
We must remember that there is no immediate indication of asbestos. The company told those men:
As a result of compressed asbestos panelling being found on MV 'Pioneer', the company is aware of individual concerns with regard to health and the effect that asbestos may or may not have
In order to alleviate such concerns, the company offer, at no cost to the individual, the opportunity to receive an x-ray at Greenock health centre. Should an employee wish to take up this facility he or she should present themselves at the health centre and at Dr. Hulme's reception where the necessary arrangements have been made.
We are, therefore, not speaking only about employees who were caught up in such circumstances years ago. That incident took place just a few days ago when the ship was being repaired in a yard just a few miles away from me.
Another note to the employees stated:
As a result of compressed asbestos panelling being found on board M. V. "Pioneer", the company by way of compensation to cover damage to clothing incurred by crew members, offer the sum of £100.00. The award is given in full and final settlement of any claim made in this respect.
I should be grateful to the Minister if he would bring the case to the attention of his Scottish Office colleagues. If the Health and Safety Executive is involved, there may be a case for the incident being reported to the procurator fiscal in Greenock or Troon. The Minister should respond positively to the amendment, as he did earlier.
I refer again to the observations of the eminent consultant whom I questioned today—a man I have known for some years. He told me that he deals with 10 cases a year in the Inverclyde area. Not just shipyard workers, ferry crews or others in similar industries are involved; a recent patient of his was a bus conductress. Another victim was the wife of a shipyard worker. It was found that the regular hand-washing of her husband's protective clothing led to the woman contracting this dreadful form of cancer. Another patient was the secretary to the managing director of a shipyard. She, too, contracted this appalling illness.
The consultant told me that a plateau in the number of cases may be reached in 2005, and that there was a time lag of 30 to 40 years before onset. The average time of survival after diagnosis is nine months. Mesothelioma is one of the most resistant of all cancers. Less than 25 per cent. of patients get relief from pain by way of radiotherapy. Some of his patients suffer the most appalling pain from the disease, and radiotherapy is not effective in 75 per cent. of cases. He is one of our foremost consultants in the west of Scotland, but he said that, with the science and medical knowledge currently at our disposal, there is no cure. There is a case—south of the border, I think—of a woman who has managed to survive for two years. The consultant was astonished that she had survived for so long, as most patients die within six to 12 months.
For those reasons, I impress upon the Minister the merit of my amendment. He knows that I have been guided by members of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Frank Maguire and the cases that have come to my—we are supposed to call them advice bureaux now, but being old Labour I still call them surgeries. I have a constituent who has that complaint, and it is heartbreaking to see. A friend of mine in my constituency, a shipyard worker, recently died of the disease.
There is a powerful case for giving victims the support that I seek through the amendment. The Minister, being skilled in both parliamentary draftsmanship and the law, will tell me that my amendment is, as we say up our way, going to Gourock—in other words, cock-eyed. On behalf of all the people in our Clydeside constituencies who have suffered grievously from mesothelioma, I want the Minister to give me a positive response. They deserve our continuing and abiding sympathy, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will respond in a way that they and their families deserve. Many victims live their last few months in agony; pain killers and radiotherapy are not much use, and chemotherapy is not used in such cases.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. I do not want to divide the House. We are speaking of people in dreadful pain, with an appalling prognosis. They deserve his deepest sympathy.

Mr. Roger Evans: I entirely endorse the graphic description given by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) of this class of case and the victims' sufferings. There is no doubt that mesothelioma is a particularly pernicious cancer, as he said. Its effects are as appalling as he described.

Dr. Godman: It is just a minor point, but the Minister will be much more popular in my constituency if he pronounces Greenock correctly.

Mr. Evans: I represent a Welsh seat and we have the same sort of problem. I apologise to Greenock for the discourtesy, which was not intended. It was fair to pull me up for that, and I apologise.
The amendment is important and has been forcefully presented by the hon. Gentleman. I am well aware of the helpful and constructive role of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the discussions that led to the legislation and the way in which it has developed. When we discussed the previous amendment, I meant to mention Mr. Frank Maguire, whom it is fair to say I have not seen recently, but to whom I had the advantage of speaking during discussions, which were helpful and constructive.
A debate on the Bill was encouraged, which was partly the responsibility of the Social Security Committee. Many practitioners representing different aspects have given their advice to the Government and participated in the discussions.
I was asked whether it was or is the case that, if a mesothelioma sufferer died before examination by a Benefits Agency doctor, the claim failed. I asked the hon. Gentleman to clarify which sort of claim he was referring to—benefits or damages at common law—to which he helpfully replied, "Both."
With regard to industrial injuries disablement benefit, I do not have the relevant expert advice to hand to give a confident answer. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. With regard to a claim for damages at law, at least in England, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 would provide for the survival of the action in certain circumstances to some degree. If there is a widow and dependants, they have a fatal accidents claim. It then becomes simply a question of proof, and no doubt there are other means of proving what happened to establish the cause of action.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to draw the attention of my Scottish Office colleagues to the case that he described. It may assist us all if he would write to them or me. I appreciate the force of his observations.
This is a hard amendment to answer, as the situation is heart-rending. Mesothelioma is an horrific condition. I am advised—I asked for background information of the sort that the hon. Gentleman obtained from his constituent, the distinguished consultant and medical man to whom he referred—that the median time from contracting mesothelioma to death is nine to 15 months, depending on medical opinions. It is possible, I am advised, to contract mesothelioma without exposure to asbestos, but that is very rare. There has apparently been a small number of cases involving children who, as far as anyone is aware, have not been exposed to asbestos.
The number of deaths from mesothelioma is about one quarter, I am advised, of all the deaths caused by asbestosis. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman again pointed


out with considerable force, one of the more horrific problems of the condition is the fact that there is a long period between exposure to asbestos and the striking down by mesothelioma.
I am advised that research by Whitewell and Rawcliffe in 1971 among 52 patients, mainly in Liverpool shipyards, revealed that the mean period between first exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma is 42 years—and that is the mean. That is what is so horrific, why it strikes people in old age and why that group of people was so affected by the existing legislation, which this Bill replaces. I am advised that the range can be anything between 13 and 63 years.
On the face of it, with that sort of situation, why do I not agree to the amendment? The difficulty is this: one of the horrific features of asbestosis is that one does not know how and when death will follow. Deaths from mesothelioma are about a quarter of all deaths from asbestosis. One of my constituents, whom I was speaking to this weekend, who has contracted asbestosis and who is pursuing his remedies through the courts, told me that one of the more horrific aspects of asbestosis was simply not knowing whether mesothelioma would strike.
One of the problems is that people can die of lung cancer, which is, I am advised, medically a separate and distinct form of cancer, as well as a result of asbestosis. Of course, even if they do not die of either of those two conditions, asbestosis sufferers face other horrific, unpleasant and on-going consequences. I recognise the force of the argument, but I respectfully suggest that it is difficult, if death is the consequence of asbestosis, to single out one particular group, albeit one for which one might reasonably and properly have the greatest sympathy.

Mr. Clapham: On mesothelioma, I think that the Minister will find that the Benefits Agency will take on a posthumous case. If that proves not to be true, will the Minister consider referring the matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council so that we might get a decision on how the issue should be tackled? It is an important issue.

Mr. Evans: I am not entirely clear of the point that has been raised. The point that I was asked about involved someone dying of mesothelioma without medical examination by the Benefits Agency doctor. That is a specific point. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting a slightly broader point. I am aware of the considerable concerns on mesothelioma. It is the function of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to keep Ministers advised on these matters. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with his specific concerns, I will happily consider them and ask the council specifically to advise.
I point that I was developing was that it was difficult to distinguish one class of asbestosis sufferer from another, but it should also be borne in mind that there are other equally horrific and fatal forms of cancer which can result from exposure during working time and which cause death. A classic example is exposure in the dye industry, which causes bladder cancer much later. I am suggesting, therefore, that this is an area in which one is bound to have sympathy for any of the groups of sufferers. It is difficult to make the distinction that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has made.
The hon. Gentleman said—I do not criticise it—that I might find technical difficulty with his amendment. There is one slight technical problem; he has managed to exempt defendants and their insurers in mesothelioma cases from having to pay anything to the compensation recovery unit. I should have thought that he would have wanted to do exactly the reverse: to protect particular sufferers.
For that combination of reasons, although I accept fully the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I respectfully urge him not the press the amendment, as I think he said he would not, to a Division.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response. I am sorry that there is a fault in the amendment—I would certainly not want to push it to a Division with such a fault. I am grateful to the Minister also for acknowledging the devastating nature of this ailment, and hope that the Bill, without my amendment, will give some consolation to the victims and the families concerned. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Roger Evans: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill deals with a discrete and separate part of the social security system. It is probably not a sector familiar to most of our constituents, but it is an area of great concern for those involved in the personal injuries litigation process. A number of hon. Members know a great deal about the subject, on which trade unions classically give much helpful advice to their members. There is a great body of expert advisers in the sector: solicitors, lawyers of one sort or another and people who are concerned with the subject and deal on a day-to-day basis with the system.
The Bill's importance involves the fact that the current arrangements, which were enacted in 1989, succeeded well in doing certain things. It delivered valuable savings to the taxpayer without placing an untoward administrative burden on either compensators or victim representatives. It is worth noting that the Select Committee on Social Security made particular reference to those aspects of the existing scheme. More than £500 million has been recovered since the inception of the existing scheme.
The Select Committee also concluded that the recovery of benefits to prevent double compensation was justified, but it also drew attention to an unintended consequence of the existing scheme: in some cases, it can lead to the erosion of victims' damages for pain and suffering. It is to put that right that the Bill has been advanced and that its Third reading has been moved.
Before introducing the Bill, the Government consulted extensively with interested parties. Two separate exercises were mounted, the first on the implications of the Select Committee's recommendations, the second on the compliance cost assessment. I wish to restate our thanks to all the people who were consulted for the positive responses that we have received. I particularly thank Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which I mentioned earlier.
We have had a constructive dialogue with that group, as well as with other people. That has enabled us to advance our thinking on some important issues.
The consultation process culminated in the introduction of the Bill in another place on 7 November last year, before it was transferred to the House on 21 January. I thank all those who have most carefully followed the Bill in the House and shown considerable and keen interest in the measures proposed. I particularly thank the hon. Members who considered the Bill in Standing Committee.
I have referred to the importance of the Bill. I suspect that that is why it has taken the course that it has.
This important topic has not had a happy past. We are talking about phase three. Phase one existed between 1948 and the coming into force of the present scheme on 1 January 1989. Under the first scheme, the defendant or his insurers were entitled to deduct against special damages half of certain specified benefits. That curious arrangement was condemned by the Public Accounts Committee in 1986. It had the perverse and extraordinary consequence of providing a subsidy out of public funds for the tortfeasor or his insurers. That cannot have been right. The Public Accounts Committee and others consequently recommended that it be changed, as it was in 1989.
The second striking and unsatisfactory feature of the 1948 scheme was that it began with three named benefits that existed at that time. Thereafter, the benefit system altered, with benefit succeeding benefit. The consequences for the arrangement were not clear. As a result, litigation—going in many cases to the House of Lords—occurred on a series of different benefits paid by the Department. Certain issues of day-to-day importance for those engaged in litigation were unclear.
Some classic examples include supplementary benefit, which was introduced in 1966, but not sorted out until 1982. Benefit paid up to the date of a damage award was taken into account, but not thereafter. It was determined in 1980 that unemployment benefit should be deducted in full. It was also eventually decided that statutory sick pay should be deducted in full.
One of the advances in the Bill that I particularly commend to the House is schedule 2, which, for the first time, lists not only the heads of compensation, but the benefits that can be recouped against them or set off. Under the new scheme, the set-off arrangement is specified in detail and a power is provided by regulation passed by affirmative instrument to alter that from time to time. The arrangements between 1948 and 1989 were not satisfactory. We have corrected them and introduced a better mechanism to enable adjustments to be made later, as the benefits system develops.
The main advantage of the Bill is that it protects plaintiffs—particularly asbestosis sufferers whose diagnosis was made in retirement—who suffered enormous recoupment against their pain and suffering damages. That has been put right. The 1989 scheme put more of the burden on the plaintiff. The Bill puts more of the burden on the defendant and, in particular, his insurers.
That is surely right, because the defendant and, by secondary implication, those who cover his risks, commit the tort of negligence—or whatever it happens to be—that

causes the injury. It is right that he should bear the greater part of the burden, subject only to a set-off against the plaintiff in circumstances in which the plaintiff might be said to be doubly recovering in a way that would not be fair and appropriate in comparison with an ordinary private contract of indemnity insurance.
The Bill strikes a balance between the parties and for the public, because we have preserved the principle of the protection of public funds embodied in the 1989 Act and extended it. The whole may now be recovered from the defendant and his insurer, subject only to the right of set-off.
I respectfully suggest to the House that the Bill strikes a far better balance between the three parties involved. The plaintiff has a fairer deal in cases that were adversely affected by the 1989 scheme, more burden is properly placed on the defendant and his insurer and the public interest is protected. It would be rash to suggest that the scheme will last as long as the 1948 scheme, which was in force for 40 years. The 1989 scheme was not so long-lived. This time, bearing in mind the long gestation of the arguments and the full discussions and consultation processes that we have had, we may have produced a measure in this important area that should endure at least for a generation and, I hope, for longer. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be exceedingly brief. I am immensely relieved that the Bill is going through, when there are just a few days left in this Parliament. My constituents will be relieved that it is to receive Royal Assent. I have reservations about it, but I shall not voice them now, because I expressed them when speaking to my amendments this afternoon, as well as on Second Reading and in Standing Committee. There are still problems. I am still bothered about delays in appeals. The Minister kindly responded to my concerns.
The Minister said that this is the third stage. The schemes have a remarkable history in our parliamentary democracy, largely because of the lobbying from a number of pressure groups, particularly Clydeside Action on Asbestos. The Select Committee agreed to investigate the modus operandi of the compensation recovery unit. It came up with a first-class report, and now we have the Bill. I have reservations about the Bill, but it demonstrates what can be done when there is good will on both sides of the House. Such good will has been noticeable by its absence during my years here. I give a qualified welcome to the Bill, which will give some relief to many of my constituents and thousands of others in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not detain the House. I welcome the fact that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the general election campaign proper. I am delighted that some of my constituents and people across the country will benefit from it. I have always felt it wrong that any amount over £2,500 was clawed back by the Treasury from injured people in receipt of state benefits. The Bill will be to the advantage of those who have been injured, the taxpayer and the Treasury.
The Bill is long overdue. Let us hope that it helps the injury victims whom it is designed to help. As I said on Second Reading, I am worried about clause 8 and would have liked some changes to it, but the Minister is well aware of my reservations on that, and I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Clapham: I, too, welcome the Bill, but I would not like the House to run away with the idea that there will not still be substantial deductions. On Second Reading, I put some figures to the Minister that were not as clear as they should have been. He suggested that I should clarify the matter. I ask him to consider the case of someone in his 40s with a multiplier of eight years and earnings of £10,000, giving a loss of earnings of £80,000. In addition, he would have his amount for pain and suffering. Such a serious case would be likely to have to wait some time for the medical evidence to be resolved. The five years deduction of benefit could well exceed five years of loss of earnings and may move towards wiping out most of the person's loss of earnings. I gave the Minister an example of a case in which the deduction for loss of earnings was £50,000.

Mr. Roger Evans: I need more facts to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. Surely the point is that, if the deductions will exceed such a sum, it is likely that there will be serious disability benefits of an expensive nature paid on top of loss of earnings benefits. There is a combination of those two benefits. If disability benefits are being paid, there will be a claim at law for damages for those costs as well.

Mr. Clapham: I take the Minister's point. We are talking, however, about a man or woman having to wait a considerable time for the medical condition to reach stability. During that time, benefits continue to mount, and the result can be substantial deductions, leaving a man or woman with a payment for pain and suffering on which they will have to live. Under the present regime, they would have to continue to draw on that benefit for their livelihood until the amount dropped below £8,000.
Although I welcome the Bill, I have grave concerns about it. I hope that, after it has been enacted, we may be able to return to it and deal with some of those concerns.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, because, like Opposition Members who have spoken, I have taken an interest in this matter based on my work over a number of years in practice at the Bar. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I used to do quite a lot of personal injury work. It is of concern to all of us who have worked in that field that there is an anomaly, which the Bill happily corrects after many years, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained.
Will my hon. Friend and his officials bear in mind the fact that there will still be some problem cases? I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that he and his officials are prepared to respond on specific cases where there have been problems. He and his officials will be aware that I have a constituent, Mr. Mullender, who had a great deal of difficulty in dealing with officials at a low level in the Benefits Agency. I hope that, if I write to my hon. Friend with some further details, he will be able to respond.

Mr. Roger Evans: I am, of course, happy to respond to any request.

Mr. Hawkins: The Bill achieves the objects that my hon. Friend the Minister set out. There have, however, been a number of concerns to which, in my role as deputy chairman of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, I would like to draw attention.
The results of the consultation exercise from organisations such as the Association of British Insurers and the Law Society are extremely important. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to look at them carefully as this welcome Bill becomes an Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business to be taken tomorrow.
The business will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Police Bill [Lords].
Committee and remaining stages of the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Protection from Harassment Bill.
Motion relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
Motion on the Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on ministerial accountability.
At 10 pm, the question will be put on all outstanding estimates.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.
As all hon. Members can attend, I should remind them that on Wednesday 19 March, there will be a debate on structural funds and cohesion policy in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I expect to make a further statement tomorrow about business on Thursday.
The House will also wish to know that Prorogation is intended to be at 11 am on Friday 21 March.

[Wednesday 19 March 1997: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Documents: 11382/96, Structural Funds; 12614/96, Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 36-xi (1996–97).]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House, but I believe that there will be some disappointment that he has made such a limited statement, and that we do not yet have the business for Thursday.
On a minor point, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the private Members' Bills to which he has referred will be taken in the normal way at this stage and that what is being proposed is not that Government time be given for such Bills, but that the House simply be given an opportunity to accept or reject Bills that have reached the appropriate stage?
Many hon. Members will feel that the programme over the next two days is not very balanced, because so much business is to be completed tomorrow. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the only three items outstanding from those that he has announced today are the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which is in another place today, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill and the Education Bill, all of which may be subject to Lords amendments?
If there is no further clarity today on those issues, hon. Members will be placed in a difficult position. Some may wish to participate in debates on those issues, and there may be votes. It will be difficult for Members to plan and to ensure that they are present in the House if they do not get the longest possible notice. We all accept that this is a difficult situation, but I believe that hon. Members have the right to as much warning as possible. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that we have been co-operative, but that there may have to be votes on some items of outstanding business.
On a different note, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is particularly pleased that co-operation has extended to the Government dropping clauses 1 to 19 of the Education Bill. That will allow us to make progress.

Mr. Newton: First, I say straightforwardly that I share the hon. Lady's disappointment at the fact that I have not been able to make a statement covering Thursday as well. In a way, that point links with what she said about the Crime (Sentences) Bill and the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent with what she said about the Education Bill, and the difficulties of planning. She will know that proceedings are proceeding in another place at this very moment on the Crime (Sentences) Bill. Inescapably, there are a number of uncertainties which put me in the position of not being as clear-cut with the House as I would otherwise wish to be. I take note of the hon. Lady's point, however, about the desirability of gaining certainty as soon as possible. I will do anything I can to achieve that.
I can confirm what the hon. Lady said about the private Members' Bills. We think that it is right to give the House a chance to express its opinion on the two Bills that have completed all stages in the Lords and are awaiting final stages in the Commons.
I agree that the Opposition have been co-operative in facilitating the passage of business in this unusual period. I note the hon. Lady's point about votes, and I also note her rather more political point about the Education Bill. I can say only that the Government are pleased that we have agreement to proceed with all the measures on discipline and standards, which account for three quarters of the Bill. We shall come back to the selection and grant-maintained deregulation measures at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: There were some rumours earlier today about the Adjournment slot tomorrow morning. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate will proceed on the basis of titled debates rather than involving a generality of subjects as it used to do when we had the debate on the Easter Adjournment and the rest? It would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman could clear up that matter.
I was pleased to be able to contribute to the agreement on the Education Bill; that is substantial progress. However, I must contrast that with the lack of the Official Opposition's continued opposition to the crime Bills. May I say in no uncertain terms so that there is no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will resolutely use every opportunity that the dying hours of this Parliament afford us to oppose both the crime Bills and the Police Bill? Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that amendments to the two crime Bills will not be tagged on to the Lords amendments at the end of Wednesday's business to which he referred in his business statement, and that they will be dealt with in a proper, substantial debate on Thursday?

Mr. Newton: If I may take those points in reverse order, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the clear-cut undertaking that he asked for at the end of his remarks. The matter must inescapably be considered in the light of progress in another place. Apart from that, I note what he said on those matters. I am rather less able to confirm the co-operation of the Liberal Democrat party in these unusual days, as I have called them, because it is being totally unco-operative on Bills to which many people outside as well as inside the House attach very considerable importance in maintaining the fight against crime. I can confirm his understanding that the debates tomorrow will be of the kind that he indicated.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend give some assurance that, if not tomorrow at least on Friday, the recommendations dealing with tax simplification and the revision of Standing Orders will be put to a vote in the House so that they can be dealt with before Parliament is prorogued?

Mr. Newton: The basic answer to that question is yes. I hope that there will not be a vote, because the basis on which I am putting forward my right hon. Friend's Committee's proposals is that there is general agreement on them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government in their last few days are subject to all this dither? This is the third business statement in two days in the last few days of this Parliament. Is it any wonder that "The Soaraway Sun" has deserted the tired, old Tories, who cannot even manage the last few days of this Parliament? It has obviously reckoned that it is time that they were gone. Get on with it, and let us get this other lot in.

Mr. Newton: All that I can say is that, on this occasion, if those on the Liberal Bench behind the hon. Gentleman were as co-operative as he is, we would not be having all these difficulties.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit that it was drowned in ribaldry, during Prime Minister's Question Time the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked a perfectly legitimate question on cash for questions. Having now looked at—I will not say that I have read the entire thing—the complaint against the Home Secretary to which the Leader of the House referred me yesterday, may I say that some of us think that Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed is something of a fantasist? If that is true, may we have an interim report for the

protection of the good name of the House from what I gather is an absolutely massive amount of evidence in front of Sir Gordon Downey? Will the Government at least make an interim statement especially in relation to Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed's claims, which were seen by so many people?

Mr. Newton: For reasons that I have rehearsed on a number of occasions in responding to the hon. Gentleman, I am not in a position to speak on behalf of the Government, as distinct from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, concerning the matter. Equally, were I to respond in quite the way that he has suggested, I would, in effect, be going beyond my powers as Chairman of a Committee whose reports have been the reports of a Committee and not produced at my dictation. I shall, however, certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is a distinguished fellow member of it, has heard them.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Can the electoral registration figures for England and Wales be published in the Library tomorrow? I understand that they are to be made available on Thursday. Whether any hon. Member may approach Madam Speaker about trying to use a procedural device in order to debate the figures depends on the time at which they are made available.

Mr. Newton: This is a little uncharitable of the hon. Gentleman in view of the efforts that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the Director of the Office for National Statistics and I have made to meet his concerns. After what has been said on a number of occasions about the expectation that the statistics would be made available on 26 March, they will in fact be made available in the Library on Thursday 20 March in a pre publication version entirely to respond to his pressure. What is more, the Office of National Statistics wrote to him very courteously and told him so.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that these daily piecemeal statements are totally unsatisfactory? The responsibility undoubtedly lies with the prime Minister, who refused to disclose the date of the election, despite the fact that everybody knew that it would be 1 May. The Government are clearly ending in the same shambles in which they have been for past five years-although I do not put any blame on the Leader of the House. If this is to be my last business question of this parliament, may I thank him for the courteous manner in which he has dealt with business?

MR. Newton: Those last remarks have completely blocked the answer that I was about to give the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Gunnell: I reminded the Leader of the House in last week's business question of the statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that efforts were being made to table an all-party view of ministerial accountability in the form of a resolution. Has there been progress on that matter? Will there be such a resolution?

Mr. Newton: I realize that I announced so much that, as it were, hon. Members' eyes and minds may have


glazed over during it. I said that there will be a motion on ministerial accountability tomorrow, but I cannot say that it will necessarily be on an all-party basis because I understand that, as on a number of other issues, the Liberal Democrats have taken an idiosyncratic view.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Leader of the House has responded to me on more than one occasion, the most recent occasion being Thursday, about the House debating the best option for dealing with the grotesque stockpile of the remains of more than 1 million cattle. Half an hour ago, I received a written answer that said the remains were being
incinerated or stored safely pending destruction by the best practicable environmental option".
We have still not had the opportunity to debate or hear a ministerial statement on the best practicable environmental option for such destruction and what that might mean for future generations, who may be put at risk by the horrible stockpile that is building up all over the country.

Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Lady asking for a debate tomorrow?

Mrs. Jackson: I am.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to promise a debate tomorrow—unless you, Madam Speaker, indicate something about the debates you have chosen or the changing of them on the motion for the Adjournment. Once again, I undertake to draw the hon. Lady's concerns to the attention of my ministerial colleagues, although the answer that she was given seems reasonably clear.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a short statement tomorrow on the chaotic evacuation of over 65 British citizens—including a constituent of mine—from Albania on Wednesday? They were kept on the quayside in Durres for 14 hours without food and water and under constant threat of being killed by gunfire. I understand that HMS Birmingham, which was supposed to be there at the time, did not arrive until two days later.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary,

although I cannot undertake to see that a statement is made. Without revealing any state secrets, I can confirm that I have read the telegrams from our people in Albania. It is clear that they have made every effort, in a difficult situation, to assist British citizens to the best of their ability.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House comment on the complaint by Lord Justice Ackner earlier this afternoon in another place? He complained about the way in which the Government are bouncing through some of the criminal justice legislation without due consideration by either House. He called the Government's actions unconstitutional. While I recognise the need for collaboration by both sides of the House to get business through, we have a massive backlog of legislation because the Leader of the House has not properly programmed Parliament's time. Too much is going through in too short a time, without due debate. That is unfair and unconstitutional, and makes a mockery of the work of Parliament which is supposed to debate legislation and vote after due consideration.

Mr. Newton: In view of the attitude that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench have taken to the legislation, his remarks might be directed to them, not to me. Beyond that, I have enough difficulty commenting on what is said in this Chamber, without committing the offence of commenting on what is said in another place.

Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend find time tomorrow to debate the excellent state of the British economy? I am sure that everybody in the House, and people outside, would like a debate so that they can understand the great strength of the British economy and how it is the best in Europe.

Mr. Newton: That is a very good idea, but, to my great regret, I cannot accommodate it.

BIRDS (REGISTRATION CHARGES) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Read the Third time, and passed.

POLICE

Resolved,
That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No. 4) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Criminal Law

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (No. 2) Order 1997, dated 27th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.— [Mr. Carrington.]

Mr. Alun Michael: I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify one point on the powers of stop and search. As I understand the guidance that the Minister has published, the new powers depend on clearly identifying members of a gang and do not, therefore, amount to the reintroduction of wider powers of stop and search that might give rise to concern. That is an important point and concerns many people, so I would be grateful if the Minister could put his advice on the record.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am delighted to be able to confirm that the changes proposed are a response to the development of a perceived knife-carrying culture among some young people, and the formation of gangs in which knives are used with intent to maim or kill. There are additions to the code. If it is helpful, I will read out briefly the crucial part of the code, which is still there and which the order does not dilute. Section 1.7 of the code states:
a person's colour, age, hairstyle or manner of dress, or the fact that he is known to have a previous conviction for possession of an unlawful article, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other as the sole basis on which to search that person. Nor may it be founded on the basis of stereotyped images of certain persons or groups as more likely to be committing offences.
I trust that that will assure the hon. Gentleman, on the record, that the new power cannot be twisted in any way and used as an excuse to stop people of an ethnic minority group or a certain age or colour. The additional powers to stop people who bear a distinctive insignia and who are part of a knife-carrying gang will be helpful to the police, who have warmly welcomed them.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister. That clarification is important.

Question put and agreed to.

Treasure

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move,
That the Treasure Act 1996 draft Code of Practice (England and Wales), which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That the Treasure Act 1996 Northern Ireland draft Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise to the House for the fact that, because the statutory instruments are complex, I may have to take slightly longer than has been taken on the previous measures. The instruments seek the approval of the House for two draft codes of practice on the Treasure Act 1996.
It may be useful if I briefly remind the House of the scope and purpose of the Treasure Act 1996. The Act was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant), to whom the House is deeply indebted, as a private Member's Bill, and it received Royal Assent last July. It was debated at some length both in the House and in another place, and it received all-party support.
The Act replaces the common law of treasure trove in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Treasure trove hitherto provided effectively the only legal protection afforded to antiquities found in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the old law of treasure trove, all finds of objects made of gold or silver had to be reported to the coroner. However, before an object could be declared treasure trove and be the property of the Crown, it had to pass three tests: it had to be made substantially of gold or silver; it had to have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery; and its owner or his heirs had to be unknown. Finds of treasure trove were offered to museums, which had to pay the full market value for them, and that was passed on to the finder as a reward: if no museum wished to acquire the find, it was returned, usually to the finder.
The Treasure Act 1996 reforms that ancient law. It removes the need to establish that objects were hidden with the intention of being recovered, except in a very few cases; it sets out the precious metal content required for a find to qualify as treasure; and it extends the definition of treasure to include other objects found in archaeological association with finds of treasure. The Act confirms that treasure vests in the Crown or the franchisee if there is one, subject to prior interests and rights. It simplifies the task of coroners in determining whether a find is treasure, and it includes a new offence of non-declaration of treasure. Lastly, it states that occupiers and landowners will have the right to be informed of finds of treasure their land on, and that they will be eligible for rewards.
A recent survey suggested that perhaps 400,000 archaeological objects are found each year with metal detectors. Over the past 10 years, 22 finds a year on average have been declared treasure trove. Those finds comprise on average 6,000 individual objects, so they


amount to about 1.5 per cent. of the total number of objects found. We believe that the Act may double the number of cases of treasure, but that would increase the proportion covered from 1.5 per cent. to only 3 per cent. of objects found.
Section 11 of the Act requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice relating to treasure, to keep it under review, and to revise it when appropriate. The code has to set out the guidelines to be followed by my right hon. Friend when considering whether treasure should be offered to a museum, or to the finder, or to any other person, when determining a reward and when deciding whether to disclaim the Crown's title to treasure. The code may—and does—also provide guidance for finders, museums, coroners and others who are concerned with treasure.
Before preparing the code, my right hon. Friend was required to consult such interested parties as appeared to her to be appropriate and the code, or any revision of it, will not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. My right hon. Friend is required to publish the code in such a way as will bring it to the attention of all interested parties, and she may publish separate codes for England and Wales, for Northern Ireland, and for different parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland if deemed appropriate.
When the Treasure Bill was passing through Parliament, I gave a commitment that it would not come into force until the codes of practice had been approved by both Houses. I should explain why two codes have been drafted, the first to take effect in England and Wales, and the second in Northern Ireland. It was necessary to have two separate codes because of the different legislative regimes that exist in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales.
In the Province, under the terms of the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, there is a statutory duty for finders to report all archaeological objects, and anyone excavating on any land for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects requires a licence. Neither of those provisions exists in England and Wales. The Northern Ireland code therefore follows the policy laid down in the code for England and Wales, but has been adapted to take account of the different statutory regime in the Province.
It may be helpful if I summarise what the codes do, and then describe the consultation process that we have gone through. As I have said, the codes have three main purposes. They describe the requirements of the Act, they provide guidance to finders of treasure, and they set out the guidelines on the payment of rewards.
First, the codes set out what objects should be reported, and where. Importantly, the English and Welsh code proposes that the Department will draw up local agreements for each coroner's district, setting out arrangements for the delivery of finds of treasure. Secondly, the codes give clear guidelines on which objects qualify because they are found in association with treasure. In addition, they urge metal detectorists to seek advice from archaeologists as soon as they come across any large or unusual finds, and state that they will not lose out if they do.
The codes urge archaeologists to involve finders in any archaeological investigation resulting from their finds, and confirm that objects that no museum wishes to acquire can be disclaimed without the need to hold an inquest, thus streamlining the system.
One issue that proved controversial when the Treasure Bill was debated in Standing Committee concerns the position of the bodies that held franchises. However, I am glad to tell the House that all the regular exercisers of franchises—there are only four of them—have agreed to abide by the principles of the code.
The codes set out revised guidelines on the valuation of finds of treasure that museums wish to acquire. At present, the independent treasure trove reviewing committee advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on such valuations, its role being to determine the full market value of the objects discovered. Under the old system, the national museums—that is, the British museum for England, and the national museums and galleries of Wales in the case of finds in Wales—used to submit valuations to the committee, which would then take further advice if it thought that necessary.
The codes propose that the national museums will no longer submit valuation reports. Instead, in all cases the committee will issue reports from independent experts drawn from the trade. Finders and museums will be able to comment on the valuations before the committee makes its recommendation, and finders will continue to be able to commission their own reports, as they can at present.
On the payment of rewards, the codes set out for the first time a comprehensive policy. The aim is to strike a balance between the interests of finder, occupier and landowner. The responses that we received from the consultation exercise suggest that we have done so.
To summarise, the codes state that, where the finder has permission to be on the land, rewards should continue to be paid in full to him or her. The burden of proof as to whether he has permission will rest with the finder, and if the finder has made an agreement with the occupier or landowner to share a reward, the Secretary of State will be prepared to follow the terms of the agreement.
Where the finder has been trespassing, he or she may expect a reduced reward, or none at all. For the first time, landowners or occupiers will be eligible for rewards in such cases. Lastly, the codes define the respective interests of the landowner and the occupier in cases in which they are eligible for rewards. The Act requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult such persons as appear to her to be appropriate.
The first draft of the code was therefore issued for consultation on 17 December, with a request for comments to be made by 14 February. About 1,500 copies of the English and Welsh codes were sent out, and all the main interested parties were given an opportunity to comment. Those included all metal-detecting clubs, leading archaeological societies and museum bodies, selected museums, antiquarians, coin dealers and landowners' groups.
Although we had already fulfilled our legal obligations to consult to secure the widest possible consensus, on 28 February we circulated the revised draft of the English and Welsh versions of the code to the 50 or so organisations and individuals most closely interested in it.
Provided that the House and another place agree to approve those codes, we need a period during which the final version will be circulated as widely as possible


before the Act comes into force. That is why we propose that the commencement date of the Act should be 24 September. We expect to print up to 30,000 copies of the codes, and we shall also produce a leaflet or leaflets summarising the main points, which will be distributed even more widely. I commend the codes of practice to the House.

Sir Anthony Grant: Over 32 years I have despairingly endeavoured to introduce private Members' Bills of one sort or another, so I am especially gratified that one of them—the Treasure Act 1996, as it now is—reached the statute book successfully.
The motion before the House is the final act and deed to put that excellent measure into effect. I hope that the House will pass it. I believe that if it does, we shall have put on to the statute book a measure that will contribute greatly to the heritage of our nation, and in which everybody can participate, whether they be detectorists, archaeologists or anyone else.
The measure brings common sense to a law that has been in need of reform since mediaeval times. I should like to say how grateful I am to the Department of National Heritage for all that it has done. I am especially grateful to Dr. Roger Bland, and, if I may say so, for the splendid co-operation that I have always had from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I wish the measure well.

Mr. Mark Fisher: We welcome the code of practice, and I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the detail. Many people have battled for years, both inside and outside the House, to bring the measure about, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) on his perseverance, and also Lord Perth on his work in another place.
I hear what the Minister says—that it makes sense to wait until September for the instrument to come into force. Indeed, we have been patient so long that I suspect that all the interested parties outside the House will understand that argument. They will also understand the part of the code that says that, because we shall be in new territory, in spite of the availability of the best expert advice—I might mention Dr. Roger Bland and others—nobody quite knows how the legislation will work in practice.
We appreciate the Government's caution in scheduling a review to take place in three years' time, so that we can see how the Act and the code are working. We welcome that, and I congratulate the Minister and the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire on the new legislation. We look forward to its contributing to our cultural life and to a more orderly organisation of such matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Treasure Act 1996 draft Code of Practice (England and Wales), which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Treasure Act 1996 Northern Ireland draft Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.—[Mr. Sproat.]

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE

Resolved,
That the draft Legal Aid (Functions) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Resolved,
That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS BILL

Ordered,
That Standing Committee A be discharged from considering the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Streeter.]

PETITION

Prepayment Devices (North West Water)

Mrs. Helen Jackson: The petition is signed by 12,000 electors who live in the area served by North West Water, and arises out of their concern about the health and safety aspects of the company's plans to introduce prepayment devices that cut off households' water supply when the money runs out.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons render prepayment water devices illegal as a means of payment for water and sewerage services for low income families.

To lie upon the Table.

Child Poverty

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Miss Joan Lestor: I have served as a Member of Parliament for 26 years, having entered the House 30 years ago, been rejected for four years by Slough but then been embraced in a love affair with Eccles. During that time I have done many things and had many interests as a parliamentarian, but the issue that has dominated my life has been that of children both here and abroad, and I wanted to go out on a note that highlighted that interest.
Next month, the Save the Children Fund will launch a national campaign concerning child poverty and nutrition. Later this week, the Child Poverty Action Group and the King's Fund will publish a report documenting for the first time the wide range of health problems associated with poverty among young people, including accidents, depression, drug abuse and suicide. The report also reveals that poorer young people run a four times higher risk of early death than those who are better off.
Those facts cannot be ignored; they describe our society today. Many Conservative Members might prefer to deny them, but there are appalling levels of poverty and inequality in this country.
I am sure that many people must have been shocked when Oxfam announced that it was to extend its poverty work to the United Kingdom, a full five years after the Conservative Government signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which specifically called on states to take appropriate measures to combat disease and malnutrition through the provision of adequate nutritious foods, and to ensure that all segments of society were informed, had access to education and were supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition.
What is the Government's record on these issues? The Prime Minister, in what I thought was a breathtakingly complacent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) last October, claimed:
The United Kingdom has extensive social protection and assistance arrangements, among the most comprehensive in the world. It is by working to maintain and improve living standards through economic and social policies that we will fulfil the aspirations of the United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty, and in a way that is relevant to our society."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 650.]
That statement should be considered in the context of the 3 million families on income support, or the 14.1 million people living in households with an income that is less than half the average. Of those people, 4.3 million are children—one in three children in the United Kingdom. The work of the family budget unit at York university shows the inadequacy of income support levels to provide minimum acceptable standards of living, including nutritional standards, for children.
If the Government are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of poverty, it follows that they will not be too keen to acknowledge the link between poverty and poor health. I pay tribute to health visitors: the professionals in the front line of defence against disease, ignorance and social inequalities. They are well equipped to report back on the nation's changing health profile. They are

concerned about the mounting problems associated with poverty and poor nutrition among our children, and yet the health visitor service is being cut again.
Cambridge and Huntingdon district health authorities agreed on 26 February to cut the funding of health visiting and the school nursing service by £300,000. Buckinghamshire health authority and South Buckinghamshire NHS trust are proposing a 60 per cent. cut in school nursing. South and West Devon health authority is planning to reduce the number of school nurses by up to 50. I could go on. At least one national health service trust, the Mid-Anglia NHS trust in Bury St. Edmunds, has tried to take a do-it-yourself approach to health care by advising parents of rising two-year-olds to carry out their own developmental assessment of their children.
When the Health Visitors Association's report was mentioned in the House in January, the Deputy Prime Minister dismissed it out of hand and said that he did not accept its findings. I have not heard of any other research that has contradicted that report. It was a nationwide survey of social conditions at the end of the 20th century. It uncovered disturbing new evidence of widespread child malnutrition. Families live in overcrowded and inadequate accommodation, and suffer as a result of fuel debt and disconnections.
The Government must have a twinge of conscience about the return of rickets and tuberculosis among the child population. The report's conclusions were not the generalisations of a politician or political party, but based on first-hand information provided by concerned professionals who have had to pick up the pieces after almost 20 years of Tory government and, in the process, have discovered the return of the diseases and social conditions of the 19th century. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but that was in the report. If it is wrong, I hope that he will explain the position.
Jackie Carnell, director of the Health Visitors Association, said that great strides have been made in public health, due in no small part to the work of health visitors in preventing ill health. It is a tragedy that, as we approach the end of the 20th century, the many improvements in health and welfare are being undermined by the effects of desperate poverty on a national scale. Health visitors are uniquely placed to tackle many of those problems, so the service should be strengthened and expanded, not watered down and dismissed in the cold climate of Scrooge-style economics.
The survey found that almost one third of health visitors had had cases of tuberculosis in the previous 12 months, 61 per cent. had come across iron deficiency and 83 had had cases of failure to thrive. Those findings are more than backed up by an inner-city area report by Wendy Doyle for the British Medical Association. It shows that one third of 12 to 13-year-old girls in Hackney are calcium-deficient, one quarter are deficient in magnesium, and a quarter are deficient in zinc. Two thirds of health visitors have cases of families whose gas or electricity supply has been disconnected. Of the more than 5,600 families in the sample, 5 per cent. had had their water cut off.
Findings from the survey give an insight into the number of families suffering from disease and nutritional defects that are made worse by poor living conditions. Health visitors are frequently asked to help families who


live in unsuitable, overcrowded and inadequate accommodation, with poor facilities for preparing food. Half the health visitors in the United Kingdom deal with families living in unfit buildings with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities, which seriously hampers the hygienic preparation of food.
The "Milk for Schools" campaign produced a report last year called "The Hunger Within", which showed that the Government have given nutritional provision for children a low profile. Poor diet and poverty in childhood have long-term implications. Some of the effects are immediate, such as children falling asleep in their classrooms because they have had no proper food or breakfast. I know one teacher who keeps a supply of biscuits and fruit juice in the cupboard, which he gives to children whom he feels are undernourished.
The Minister may try to dismiss my comments as hearsay, but can he deny the evidence of a ward sister in a hospital in Romford in Essex, who yesterday wrote to me that tonsil operations were being delayed because a significant number of children were too anaemic to take the anaesthetic? A dental clinic in Leeds could not extract children's teeth, for the same reason.
Since the 1980s, the National Heart Forum has been concerned about the poor quality of children's diets, and the diet-related ill health that often begins in childhood. The poorest 20 per cent. of families spend on average £12.82 per person per week on food, and many spend far less. The effect of such low nutritional standards is appalling. Until 1980, school meals had to provide one third of a child's daily intake of energy and nutrients. It was a Tory Government who removed the obligation on local education authorities to meet nutritional standards.
More than 1 million school meals that are served daily are free, but the number of children in need of nutritional support is far greater. For example, children from families who do not qualify for income support but receive other benefits are not currently eligible. According to several surveys, 5 per cent. of children do not have a breakfast, and more than one quarter of them have no cooked meal, often because they are in accommodation that does not provide the wherewithal, so the school lunch is probably their most important meal of the day. We must ensure that it contains the essential nutrients for good health in both the short and the long term.
Several studies show that school meals play an important role for children from low-income families. Children from poorer families receive a significantly higher proportion of the day's nutritional intake from school meals than from any other source. It has been a cause of concern that the only meal provided at lunchtime is a sandwich.
Today's children are physically less active, but they still need a nutritionally dense diet. What they are currently offered is a diet that is high in fat, high in sugar, low in non-starch and low in iron and calcium. Research has found that an average school meal contains 46 per cent. fat, which exceeds the Government's recommendation of 35 per cent. A poor diet will affect children's general level of activity and their academic performance.
Without a proper nutritional base in childhood, people may suffer heart disease later on. That, as we know, is one of the major causes of death in the United Kingdom. An estimated 30 per cent. of such deaths are attributed to

a wrong or poor diet. The disease process begins in childhood: thickening of the arteries has been seen in children under the age of 10. Obesity is on the increase. A study published in the British Journal of Nutrition estimated that the number of obese children doubled between 1980 and 1990. A change in school meal cooking methods and content could make a significant difference.
Dental decay is one of the most common diseases of childhood, with more than half of all children having dental decay before their second set of teeth. That is one reason why I am appalled by the widespread introduction of sweet-laden fizzy drinks and snack dispensers in schools—it is doing the children no favours. Iron deficiency—the main cause of anaemia—is three times more common in girls than in boys, for obvious reasons. As well as affecting tissue growth, it can lead to adverse effects on intellectual performance and behaviour.
I know that the Government are not entirely unaware of this problem, which is partly of their own making. Just as the Education Act 1980 abolished nutritional standards in school meals, so the Local Government Act 1988 introduced compulsory competitive tendering to the school meals service. Very few school meals contracts have mandatory standards for nutrients built into them— often, the cheapest bid wins the contract, with no compulsory nutritional base line. Caterers often opt for a cafeteria system, providing burgers and chips. Much of the monitoring of school meals contracts focuses on hygiene and health and safety, rather than on nutrition.
Last night—after intensive lobbying by trade unions such as Unison and health professionals—the Government issued guidelines for school meals which were welcomed by, among others, Professor Tim Lang, chair of the School Meals Campaign, but he added:
We look forward to the guidelines becoming compulsory rather than voluntary. Ofsted could be given the power to ensure that school food providers are complying with the guidelines, highlighting the school meals service in the same way as they do educational performance.
The shadow Education Minister has pledged our determination to address the problem of inadequate nutrition in school meals and to introduce national nutritional standards. Some 4 million United Kingdom children eat just one meal a day, and the Government have a duty to ensure that that meal is a good one.
The poorest 25 per cent. of society spend £1.64 a day on food—that is a fact. Official food consumption statistics, according to Suzi Leather's excellent book "The Making of Modern Malnutrition", show that the people in the largest poor families eat, on average, the equivalent in nutritional terms of a couple of Brussels sprouts per person per day for their nutritional value. The fresh food consumption of the largest poor families is the equivalent of one quarter of an apple a day. In large poorer families, the consumption of fresh green vegetables has dropped to one third of the amount eaten in 1980.
The growth of out-of-town shopping has had an enormous impact on the diets of the poorest. In a six-year period, 30 per cent. of greengrocers closed. As one mother of two put it:
It costs money to go to the shops. It costs us £7 to get to the shops and back—and we are only spending £30 a week on food for all four of us.


A recent study carried out by the London school of economics compared the shopping basket prices of small shops and supermarket chains, and the price difference could amount to between 10 per cent. and 30 per cent., depending on the food bought.
We underestimate the considerable psychological stress that results from food poverty on parents, who feel that they are failing their children by not providing the right food, and on children, who see their parents going without to feed them. In the words of one mother of two with a husband on a low wage:
I don't always eat. I sometimes have breakfast, about four times a week. I always go without lunch, just a cup of tea, and very often without an evening meal. I might eat up what the kids leave. Saturday evening is the only good meal of the week.
That is happening in 1997.
As we approach the millennium, official concern about child nutrition and poverty seems to be reaching an all-time low. As Suzi Leather so effectively points out, the last decade and a half has seen the systematic reduction in state support for the diets of the most vulnerable— especially our children. Let us look at the details. In 1971, Thatcher's milk legislation abolished free school meals. In 1980, school meals were deregulated and nutritional standards abolished. The Social Security Act 1986 cut the number of children entitled to free school meals by one third, and made the provision of schools milk discretionary.
In 1988, special dietary additions were abolished, compulsory competitive tendering was introduced to the school meals service, and single payment grants for items such as cookers and fridges were replaced with social fund loans. In 1992, further social security changes took away from 35,000 of our children entitlement to free school meals, and removed the educational entitlement of all secondary school children to education in nutrition and cooking skills under the national curriculum. Finally, the 1995 Budget saw the Government opt out of the EU scheme which subsidises the use of milk as an ingredient in school meals and the provision of milk for drinking in secondary schools.
As we approach the millennium, these facts are affecting a large number of our children. We tend to look at the children of successful people and those who come from homes and families which can afford proper food, but there are thousands of children who do not eat proper food and who are deficient in a variety of ways. Child poverty, poor nutrition and ill health—both short and long-term—are linked. To ensure healthy children, society must help their parents by achieving improvements in income and living standards. We need access to healthy diets in schools and we need to help parents.
I believe that the Government have failed our children, and have neglected to see what is taking place in schools and the poverty being experienced by many of our children. The Government have a duty to ensure that proper investment in our children should include a substantial nutritional element. I am sure that the next Labour Government will do that.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I should like to pay tribute to the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), in which she

displayed the social conscience that she has shown whenever she has spoken in the House. The subject of her speech is dear to her heart, and has a local bearing, but during her time on the Opposition Front Bench she has spoken robustly in favour of assistance for countries overseas that are not as well provided for as we are. In doing so, she has displayed her social conscience and fought her corner with a robustness which sometimes has not received the recognition it deserves. I am sure that the House will be much diminished following her departure, and I wish to use this opportunity on behalf of Conservative Members to pay tribute to the work that she has done as an honourable Member of this House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles. She said that she wanted to go out on a high note because of her continued commitment to children, both in this country and overseas. I would like to pay tribute to her for her work over the past 20 years, and for the passion of her views. Obviously, she will not be surprised to learn that I do not share her concluding views, and she was unduly harsh on the Government. As she has wide experience in this House, she would not expect me to necessarily agree with everything that she said in a well thought out, detailed and knowledgeable speech.
The vast majority of households are better off as a result of the Government's policies: average income has risen by more than a third—by 37 per cent.—between 1979 and 1993–94, and those rises are not confined to a few top earners. Average income is up for all family types throughout the country.
It is a fallacy to claim that there are more children living below the poverty line than ever before. Such a claim, which rests on equating the poverty line with the income support level, would imply that any increase in benefit levels brings about an apparent increase in poverty, and that, conversely, by cutting benefit levels we could reduce the numbers on low incomes.
The facts are that those usually thought of as poor have also seen their income increased in the past 18 years. For example, a typical unemployed couple with two children, receiving income support, is 20 per cent. per week better off in real terms than in 1979. The less well-off, the bottom 10 per cent., now possess more consumer durables. The possession of such items as telephones and central heating is up by more than a half, and half those people now have cars and video recorders.
We have continued to concentrate help where it is most needed, on low-income families, less well-off pensioners and sick and disabled people on low incomes. Extra help is available to low-income families through income-related benefits worth about £1.4 billion a year more, in real terms, than in 1988. More than 706,000 families benefit every week from family credit payments.
Family credit, a benefit introduced by the Government, plays an important part in helping families with children to break out of the poverty trap, making easier the jump from the state benefit system back into work by raising their incomes through the early stages of their return to work. That is an important help, which has enabled 706,000 families to get back into work and enhance their standard of living.
The biggest cause of low income is unemployment, which has fallen by 1.1 million since December 1992. We are building on that, as recent unemployment figures have shown. I cannot anticipate what the figures will show tomorrow, but I have no reason to doubt the continuing economic recovery of this country. We have an economy that is the envy of our European partners, and that should continue to develop and strengthen in a stable and excellent way, bringing benefits to both individuals and their families, and to manufacturing, the retail sector and others.
About 750,000 people a year will benefit from a range of innovative measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his 1994 Budget to help people to move into and stay in work. From April this year, the parent plus initiative will offer help to up to 100,000 lone parents on income support to get back to work: £20 million will be invested in the scheme and supporting initiatives. It will be piloted for three years in 12 Benefits Agency districts, covering almost one tenth of Britain.
Of course we acknowledge that there is an association between health and socio-economic status: that is not unique to this country, but is seen throughout the developed world. There are also variations in health between different areas and social and ethnic groups, and between men and women. The experts agree that there are likely to be many factors at work: living and working conditions, resources, individual preferences and social relationships.
The Government are determined to work towards improving the health of the nation and breaking down the barriers between the different factors that can have an adverse impact on individuals' health, be they adults or children. Through the "Health of the Nation" initiative, we have set targets for improving health. We are the first Government to do so. Within those targets, we have asked health authorities to work with others to concentrate efforts on those whose needs are greatest. That means that we can focus on those who face poorer health than others, whether because of low income, gender, ethnicity or geography.
I want now to concentrate on the more narrow and focused area of children's health and nutritional requirements. The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned a number of issues relating to children's health, on which I am afraid that I cannot agree with her conclusions.
We know that children of all ages and in all population groups are taller and heavier than before. No group shows the signs of faltering growth that could result from under-nutrition. Indeed, Government surveys of food, nutrition and diet over the past 20 years have shown consistently that there is no evidence of malnutrition in British children. The average intake of nutrients for all groups surveyed is above the appropriate dietary reference value. The exceptions are for iron in women and girls, and calcium in some adolescent girls, but those exceptions cut across all socio-economic groups.
It is important at this stage to define a healthy diet, because I believe that there is a great deal of confusion on the subject among too many people. A healthy diet, as the hon. Member for Eccles will know, is a well-balanced and varied diet. It should consist of foods in the following groups: bread, other cereals, potatoes, fruit and vegetables, milk and dairy foods, meat, fish and alternatives.
It is important for people to understand the fundamental basis of a healthy diet. The diet of British schoolchildren is important. The growth of primary school children between the ages of five and 11 in England and Scotland was monitored between 1972 and 1994 by the national study of health and growth, which was funded by the old Department of Health and Social Security and the current Department of Health.
In 1995, the health survey for England took over that responsibility. The NSHG has demonstrated consistently over the years that children of all ages, in all population groups, including low-income, inner-city and ethnic-minority groups, are growing taller and heavier than before. That is significant, because it suggests that there is no evidence of under-nutrition among young people and children in this country.
A summary of the results of the survey, "Trends in Growth in England and Scotland", was published in a scientific journal on 11 March and generated much media attention, as it claimed to show that, although children in all groups studied had grown on average taller and heavier year on year, that was not wholly good news, because fatness among the children had also increased markedly. It was speculated that that was due to increasingly inactive life styles over the period.
The heights and weights of children were measured by the national diet and nutrition survey, which was published in 1995. It showed that children in all groups had heights and weights at or above the national standard—again, no sign of the faltering growth that may be due to under-nutrition. It is important to have that on the record, so that people do not misunderstand the results of the expert research.
There is no recent representative study of children in secondary school, but the Department of Health and Social Security survey of the diets of British schoolchildren carried out in 1982–83 found that both 10 to 11-year-olds and 14 to 15-year-olds were growing taller and heavier than ever before. That reflected the evidence of the research I mentioned earlier, on the younger age group. The field work suggests that there is no evidence of under-nutrition. A survey of the diets of more than 3,000 children aged 10 to 11 and 14 to 15 carried out in 1982–83 showed that, for intakes of all nutrients, children were above recommended levels. That adds weight to the argument that there is no under-nutrition.
Some recent surveys claim to show that a significant proportion of women on income support are seriously deficient in several essential vitamins and minerals, causing low birth weights and a high rate of infant mortality. However, our records show that infant deaths— deaths of babies under one year—which is accepted internationally as an indicator of general health, are at their lowest rate ever.
In social classes IV and V, infant death rates have fallen by more than half over the past 15 years. Infant death rates in social class V are better than those of social class I only 15 years ago. The trend is towards steadily improving health. I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes that, because it is a great step forward for the infant mortality rate to drop so dramatically over a relatively short period.
The hon. Lady mentioned reports on nutrition-related diseases. The claim that children are living in poverty on inadequate diets concerns us all and cannot be lightly


dismissed, even if we are not prepared to agree that there is evidence from proper research to back up that claim. In recent years, several reports have claimed exactly that. As she said—they are her words, not mine—they claim that we are returning to 19th-century levels of illness, with rickets and iron deficiency on the increase. Those claims are not borne out by the facts. I repeat that, because it is important: the claims are not borne out by the facts.
Let us take, for example, rickets. There is no reliable evidence that rickets, which is caused by vitamin D deficiency, is on the increase. In fact, there is good evidence that rickets, which used to be especially prevalent among Asian communities, is no longer a significant problem for those groups.
We know of occasional cases of rickets associated with extreme diets. Every effort is being made to identify their causes, with a view to reducing even those isolated cases by, for example, making available vitamin drops containing vitamin D for pregnant and lactating women, and for children under five. They are available free to families on income support, income-related jobseeker's allowance or family credit. They are available at low cost through child health clinics to the rest of population.
I caution against relying on anecdotal reports of rickets in the medical literature on extreme diets. As I have said, there is no reliable evidence that rickets is on the increase, and we have evidence to show that it is declining. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy has established an expert working group to consider the nutritional aspects of bone health in the UK population. A report from the group is expected in 1998.
On 2 January, field work for the national diet and nutritional survey of young people aged four to 18 years started. That will measure all aspects of the diet and nutritional status of young people, and will be an important enhancement of our knowledge and understanding, based on scientific and medical research.
The hon. Lady mentioned tuberculosis, which is also worrying. I agree that no one should downgrade or dismiss the problems, suffering and misery associated with it. However, the UK has an excellent record of TB control, and we are determined that that should continue. TB notification in England and Wales has reached the low level of fewer than 6,000 cases a year, compared with around 50,000 a year in 1950, only 47 years ago. She will agree that that is a dramatic drop over a relatively short period in the history of medical science.
Our success has been achieved against the background of a worldwide resurgence of TB, which is having a small but important impact on UK trends. The Government are responding positively to adverse developments abroad by strengthening our policies to protect the health of the nation against TB. Notifications of TB tend to be higher in more deprived, inner-city areas, but that does not mean that poverty and TB go hand in hand. That is down to the co-existence of some key risk factors, including a high proportion of ethnic minority groups, higher levels of HIV infection, and homelessness. We are working to deal with the specific needs of those groups by the following measures.
We are considering how to improve screening procedures for immigrants from countries with a high incidence of TB, which will allow us to treat them more

effectively. A working group on TB set up by the Department of Health to recommend further improvements in TB prevention and control published two reports last summer. One, entitled, "Tuberculosis and Homeless People", considers in detail the special needs of homeless people. We are acting on its recommendations.
Finally, and most importantly, our BCG immunisation programme to protect against TB is continuing. BCG immunisation is routinely recommended for all schoolchildren aged between 10 and 14. In addition, immunisation of high-risk groups and babies continues. That wide-ranging package should allow us to continue our proud record of TB control. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by those Government actions.
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive for me dealing with anaemia, which is an important problem associated with children, but one that she did not mention. Anaemia is the clinical manifestation of iron deficiency. Its prevalence among young children has been monitored by the national diet and nutrition survey of children aged one and a half to four and a half years, which was published 1995. Seven per cent. of males and 9 per cent. of females in that age group had haemoglobin levels below the 11 g/dl World Health Organisation level which is considered indicative of anaemia.
On 2 January 1997, field work for the national diet and nutrition survey of young people aged four to 18 years started. It will include measures of iron status. The joint Department of Health/Medical Research Council nutrition research programme will fund research to help develop better measures of iron status. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy has agreed to convene an expert group to assess the iron status of the population. Although the group has not yet started work, it will do in due course.
Related to anaemia and iron deficiency is the question of healthy eating, which is important for everyone. Research shows that many young people could eat a better balanced diet that was less rich in fat. The hon. Lady devoted a significant proportion of her speech to the problems associated with the quality of the diet given to children by their parents. With the advent of fast food, that is a problem, because young children and teenagers are attracted to hamburgers, beefburgers and fried chicken rather than to what nutritionists consider a more responsible, sensible and healthy diet.
May I briefly explain the background to school food? As the hon. Lady will know, under sections 512 and 534 of the Education Act 1996, local education authorities and grant-maintained schools were given the responsibility for the presentation, content and cost of school meals. They must provide free meals to children whose parents receive income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. They are not obliged to provide meals for other pupils, but in practice most schools do. The price of meals can be subsidised by LEAs and schools.
The development of practical national guidance for the school catering sector was taken on by the nutrition task force's catering working group, which set up a sub-group consisting of representatives from the catering world, the health education world, school meals providers and local authorities. The guidance is based on detailed nutritional guidelines for school meals, drawn up by the Caroline Walker Trust.
The project team has developed voluntary guidance in three parts. The first is aimed at head teachers and governors; the second at LEAs and grant-maintained schools; and the third at school caterers. There are no plans to introduce compulsory nutritional guidelines, and the guidance makes no reference to recent food scares, but it provides guidance which should have a positive and beneficial effect on the balance of the diet of school children.
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall stray into controversial politics, briefly and in narrow terms. I do not want to let pass one of her comments. She said that, in 1971, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven withdrew free school milk. The hon. Lady is factually correct, but, if my memory serves me right, there was a Labour Government between February 1974 and May 1979, and they made no attempt to reintroduce school milk.
My memory is now getting better. I think that the hon. Lady was a junior Education Minister during part of that period. I should be interested to know why the policy was not reversed, especially given the hon. Lady's ministerial capacity. Did she passionately believe in reintroducing school milk? Did she fight her corner vigorously and discreetly outside the glare of the media? Was she, unfortunately from her point of view, unsuccessful?

Miss Lestor: I will not go out on a note of discord. All that I will say is that it was wrong to abolish free school milk, because milk is essential to the diet of all our children.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
To get off controversial political issues, I turn to food and the national curriculum, which the hon. Lady mentioned. Food is now a compulsory part of the design and technology curriculum up to key stage 2. It is a voluntary topic in key stage 3. Nutrition is already a specified part of the science curriculum, so children are now assured of a better grounding in nutrition than ever before.
As in so many other things in life—such as the age-old problem of litter and the problem of drink-driving—good nutrition requires a process of education. A lost generation of parents in their 20s and 30s are not interested in nutritional balance in the diet, so they are not the people best qualified to provide guidance to their children at home on a properly balanced diet.
As the hon. Lady rightly said about the school education system, we may have to educate people from the bottom up through their children. That is important. The nutrition components of the curriculum at key stages 2 and 3 are a way of seeking to undo some of the damage that has happened, because a lost generation of parents all too often take the easy option. Now Kentucky fried chicken and Big Macs and other hamburgers are popular. When I was a teenager, the less glamorous fish and chip shop provided almost the only source of fast food.
When I was at school, school food was notorious for its poor quality and variety. Although life has probably improved, I suppose that it has not done so all that dramatically. At my school, if it was Monday it was Irish stew. If it was Tuesday, it was minced beef. If it was Wednesday, it was Irish stew with a pastry top. If it was Thursday, it was shepherd's pie. If it was Friday, it was

fish fingers. If it was Saturday, it was something cold, such as spam or ham. If it was Sunday, we got roast beef, roast lamb or sometimes roast chicken, depending which Sunday of the month it was. The quality was appalling. The variety was non-existent, because there was no choice.
Most children will vote with their feet if they do not like the food that is put before them. They refuse to eat it. They go out and spend their money on fast food, or badger their parents to buy it for them. It is easier for some parents to take that option than to go through all the trouble of preparing and cooking vegetables and meat, or whatever, at home, then sitting down and eating it and clearing up afterwards. It is easier to go to a fast food outlet and buy meals with few nutritional benefits for children or adults.

Mr. Colvin: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about fast food and the importance of school meals. I happen to represent a constituency—or rather, I hope to represent the constituency after the election— in which one of the largest apple farms in the country, run by the John Lewis Partnership, is situated. We produce Cox's orange pippins.
There is a good case to be made for ensuring that an apple a day is on the menu of every child in school. It is an old adage, I know, that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but it is true. It is also important that the apples distributed in schools are British, not apples drawn in from continental suppliers, under whatever name. There is nothing like an apple a day, and it ought to be a Cox's orange pippin.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is extremely fortunate to have such an orchard in his constituency.

Mr. Colvin: Constituency-to-be. We have had a boundary change.

Mr. Burns: I am sorry. I am about two weeks ahead of my time—or six weeks.
I am sure that the owners of the orchard will have heard his comments today. I was brought up on an apple a day to keep the doctor away. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for it.

Mr. John Marshall: I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) had to say about apples. I must first declare an interest, in that my father-in-law was an apple grower, and some of my wife's family are still apple growers.
My hon. Friend said that all apples served in British schools should be English apples. Although that is clearly preferable, is my hon. Friend aware that a Cox can only keep for about eight months, and that there is therefore always a window in which one cannot supply the market with English apples? It is one of the great tragedies of the British apple industry that, from April to August, there can be no English apples on the market. Will he bear that in mind when considering the issue?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that highly technical information. It is wonderful what one can learn from one's colleagues while standing at the Dispatch


Box, and I shall certainly bear his remarks in mind. A British apple would be best, but, given the problem of the window in which, for seasonal reasons, one cannot find or buy British apples, we are fortunate to be living in a society that can import apples, so that people are not be deprived of their daily apple, even if it is not their daily British apple.
Returning to the question of food and nutritional benefits to children and young people, it is appropriate to mention the welfare food scheme, which provides a nutritional benefit in kind, rather than in cash, for pregnant and breast-feeding mothers, and for children under five in low-income families.
As the hon. Member for Eccles is probably aware, the main provision of the scheme is that expectant and breast-feeding mothers and children under five in families in receipt of income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance receive the following free of charge. Welfare milk beneficiaries receive a milk token per week, which may be exchanged for seven pints or eight half-litres of liquid milk. Infants under one year who are being bottle-fed may receive instead 900 g per week of a range of specified brands of infant formula. Vitamin supplements beneficiaries receive either vitamin drops or tablets containing vitamins A, D and C.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister—having only just come into the Chamber, it is rather impertinent of me to intervene in his speech. He has been talking about a range of benefits, but is there not some rumour that, dependent on the election results, there might be some risk to child benefit and related allowances? May I take it that the Conservative party is committed to the existing position, and that, along with the benefits about which he has been speaking, those benefits will be maintained? If, perchance and by severe misadventure, there should be a change of Government, is it not true that some of those benefits might be at risk?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's perspicacious views. As he rightly points out, the Conservative Government pledged—and have honoured the pledge throughout the life time of this Parliament—to maintain child benefit for all mothers with children under a certain age. I do not know how much the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and his spin doctors have been arguing with the shadow Cabinet, but there have indeed been rumours and announcements that the shadow Chancellor was going to get tough and cut off child benefit for 16 to 19-year-olds who are still in school.
That would have an impact on the financial position of many families. If a universal benefit paid to all mothers with children of the qualifying age was cut off, those on low incomes would suffer, as well as those in middle or high income brackets. I know that any such proposal would be ring-fenced, so that anyone in receipt of a state benefit such as income support would not have their child benefit cut off, but there are many families who are above income support level but are not rich or well-off, and their family income would be cut. That tax-free sum would be

taken from them, and they would have less money to spend on good-quality food to help to give their children a proper balanced diet.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair, and is taking advantage of a situation. As I understand it, what has been discussed or said is that there is a problem whereby the children of the rich stay on at school, such as those at Eton college which is in my old constituency, and their parents, who can well afford to keep them at school, receive child benefit for them; whereas children of poorer families would often like to stay on at school if the benefits made if possible for them to do so, but they cannot.
The proposition that was discussed—there has been no policy announcement—was how resources could be switched away from those who do not need them towards those who need them most, and thus encourage them to stay on at school because it is in their interests to do so. That is what the argument was about; it was not about removing child benefit from poor families, and the Minister knows that.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. As a member of the Labour party, she may be better equipped to know exactly what was going on in the internecine wars of the shadow Cabinet. One of the problems currently facing the country is that, all too often, the Labour party does not tell us what its policies are, whether on child benefit or a windfall tax.
From the announcements on child benefit, which might affect the diet and the nutritional value of meals for teenagers, my understanding was that the benefit was going to be cut for all 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in this country except those whose families were on benefit. That would hit the less well-off who are above benefit level as much as it would hit the families mentioned by the hon. Lady whose children are at Eton college. Poorer families would be hit far harder than rich families, and it could adversely affect not only their diets but the quality of the food in their homes.

Mr. Colvin: I very much doubt whether any families with children at my old school actually claim child benefit, but, were they to do so, a fair way of solving the problem would be to tax the benefit. I cannot understand why either party cannot have a policy stating that that sort of benefit should be taxed, because that would ensure that no one had an unfair advantage.

Mr. Burns: I shall not stray into taxation policy, because I may incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is the last thing I want to do.
I should like to say to my hon. Friend that there are assisted places at Eton for young boys—as far as I know, Eton college is not co-educational—so many families benefit under the assisted places scheme. As he knows, the Labour party plans to phase out that scheme and reinvest the money in health education. That will affect the psychological health of a child who previously thought that, because of his academic achievement, he would benefit from an assisted place, but then found that he would not be able to do so, because some future Labour Government had phased it out.
That raises another interesting point, which puzzles me. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you saw Mr. Jeremy Paxman in a razor-sharp interview of the


right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on "Newsnight" last night. If not, I strongly suggest that you go to the House of Commons Library and get a video of it. It was an eye-opener. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield did not seem to be very persuasive about the money that would come from the assisted places scheme, which would be phased out and would therefore not provide a lot of money at once. I also do not think that he has considered the psychological effects of Labour's pernicious policy of depriving bright people of the opportunity to attend a school to which their parents could not otherwise afford to send them.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend said that there were one or two things that he did not know about Labour party policy. He should get a copy of tonight's Evening Standard, which says that there are 50 things we do not know about Labour party policy. To return to the issue of food and nutrition—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is right to do so.

Mr. Marshall: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to deal with the subject of food, nutrition and young children.
Does my hon. Friend agree that income is one of the factors determining the amount of nutrition that parents can afford to give their young children, and that that income is very much a function of whether they are in employment? Does he not therefore agree that there are very real risks to young children's nutritional standards from certain proposals that will be made in the United Kingdom?
Does my hon. Friend agree that a national minimum wage would affect young children, because their parents will become unemployed? Does he also agree that the social chapter would affect them? On food and nutrition, is he aware that the Brewers Society has suggested that the minimum wage would add 7p to a pint of beer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions are almost becoming tedious repetition. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to pull up him or any other hon. Member on that point again.

Mr. Burns: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will certainly do my best not to be tedious or repetitive.
I was explaining to the hon. Member for Eccles the important welfare food scheme. I should like to return to one point—not for the purpose of repetition but because, due to the enthusiasm of my hon. Friends, I suspect that the hon. Lady would like me to jog her memory. I was saying that welfare milk beneficiaries receive one milk token per week, which may be exchanged for seven pints or eight half litres of liquid milk. Infants under one year who are being bottle-fed may receive 900 g per week of a range of specified brands of infant formula. Vitamin supplement beneficiaries receive either vitamin drops or droplets containing vitamins A, D and C.
Parents of children aged under one in families in receipt of family credit are entitled to purchase at a reduced price—currently £3.65–900 g of infant formula per week from clinics.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Burns: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to finish the section on welfare food schemes. I shall then be delighted to give way.
Liquid milk means whole or semi-skimmed liquid cows' milk, including long-life or UHT milk but not fully skimmed milk. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eccles will agree that that is a wide range, in a time when consumers want choice and shop around for the different types of milk that they think is particularly suitable for their family. The scheme has embraced that principle.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think that it is not consistent or logical to say that children's nutrition and their family's wealth necessarily go together, and that there is not necessarily such a correlation? Cannot people spend large sums on food that is not nutritious? Does he not agree that it is fundamentally important that schools across the United Kingdom should have programmes to educate people on family nutrition?

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid and important point, which is similar to the one about the person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. Any individual can spend a considerable sum on food, but merely because the food is expensive does not mean that it is good food with nutritional value, or that it has as much nutritional value as other types of food that might be infinitely cheaper. As he said, the important factors are knowledge of the type of food one buys, why one should buy good food, and how one's family and oneself can benefit to the maximum extent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has rightly said that education is fundamentally important. As he will be aware, key stages 2 and 3 of the national curriculum provide for such information and knowledge to be provided to young children. As I told the hon. Member for Eccles—to avoid being out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not elaborate in detail—we may well have a lost generation of parents, who are aged in their 20s and 30s, who never received such education. They do not understand the problems, and think that they can put any type of food in front of a child. That is why we may have to educate those parents through their children.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend almost anticipated my supplementary question. What about that lost generation of parents who do not know how best to feed their children? What about that lost generation of parents who spend disposable income on Haagen-Dazs ice cream, which may taste nice but is not nutritious? What is his Department doing to educate parents who did not benefit from current educational programmes?

Mr. Burns: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Department of Health is extremely concerned about


educating individuals—whether they are children, teenagers, young adults, adults or the elderly—on all health matters, such as nutrition, preventative medicine and looking after themselves. It is also concerned about ensuring that we improve, through "The Health of the Nation" targets, the health of the nation; it is as simple as that. One method is through diet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Notwithstanding Haagen-Dazs ice cream and its nutritional qualities, and the states in which some people eat it—I gather that some people like to eat it in various states of undress—does not the matter have some bearing on a slightly attached but distant subject: how people are educated about food in schools, such as in domestic science? We know that that is not a specific part of the national curriculum. Does my hon. Friend not think that perhaps we should be thinking of pushing people down that road in the future, when we return from the general election?

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; education has a key role to play, as I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire. As I said, part of the national curriculum, in key stages 2 and 3, deals with nutrition, food and dietary requirements. It is an important function of the national curriculum.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was not there a little bleeping just now in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been a little bleeping going on for quite a while. I did not hear the latest one.

Mr. Burns: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a bleeping, and it puts me in a rather difficult

position. I am not being paged by a spin doctor, and I have set my pager to vibrate rather than to bleep. Unfortunately, however, the battery in my pager has run down. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will turn it off.
I should now like to make some progress.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because I know that there have been many interventions in his reply to this important debate. On the subject of education, would he say that his Department is in constant correspondence and linking with special needs education in the Department of Education and Employment, with which I am involved?

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend has raised an important subject. The Department of Health is in constant touch with all Government Departments and, through the Children's Services Strategy Group with local authorities, discussing children's issues—special needs, diet and nutrition, and many other important areas that affect the lives of children.
Healthy eating is important for everyone. A balanced, sensible diet is critical. Education is needed; we must make sure that everyone is aware of the best nutritional foods, so as to enhance and maintain the health of families and the community at large.
If this was the hon. Lady's swan song, she certainly went out on the high she hoped to reach when she began her speech, on which I congratulate her. Given her commitment and interest, she will be sorely missed by hon. Members, who have never once questioned the sincerity of her commitment to improving the lives of children, in this country and around the world. She will indeed be greatly missed.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at Eight o 'clock.